1. Petition challenging demolition order for property on land acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 19819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Triloki Nath Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14076/2026 | CM APPL. 65874/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Honey, Shukla, Arun Kumar, Sagar Jaiswal
For the Respondents: Tushar Sannu, Viabhav Tripathi, Devvrat Tiwari, Chetan Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Sunil Kumar Jha, M.S. Akhtar, Sameer Vashisht, K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Dheeraj Kumar Singh, Md. Sueb Akhtar, Musarrat Hashmi, Kushagra Dixit, Hanu Parashar, Abhay Verma, Harshita Nathrani
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Honey, Shukla, Arun Kumar, Sagar Jaiswal
For the Respondents: Tushar Sannu, Viabhav Tripathi, Devvrat Tiwari, Chetan Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Sunil Kumar Jha, M.S. Akhtar, Sameer Vashisht, K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Dheeraj Kumar Singh, Md. Sueb Akhtar, Musarrat Hashmi, Kushagra Dixit, Hanu Parashar, Abhay Verma, Harshita Nathrani
Land purchased after the issuance of a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be claimed as owned property to stop demolition, although the occupant remains entitled to seek compensation from the Land Acquisition Collector.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition - Validity of Sale - Purchase of land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification and subsequent Award does not grant ownership rights that can override the acquisition. (Para 5, 10, 15)
(B) Compensation - Right to Claim - A person occupying acquired land, regardless of the validity of their purchase deed, is entitled to lodge a claim for compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector. (Para 15, 17)
(C) Humanitarian Relief - Demolition - The Court may grant a short window to vacate the property on humanitarian grounds and direct ex-gratia payment to facilitate the transition. (Para 16, 17)
Issues: Whether the petitioner could challenge the demolition of property that had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act prior to the purchase of the land by the petitioner's predecessors.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions to vacate and right to claim compensation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed ownership via sale deed and will; respondents argued land was acquired and possession taken. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Land acquired under Section 4 notification in 1959; sale deed post-acquisition invalid; petitioner enjoyed property for 58 years. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Once acquisition proceedings complete and compensation deposited, no valid sale can occur of acquired land. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Petition dismissed; petitioner to vacate by 15 Nov 2026; entitlement limited to compensation; ex-gratia granted. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Can a sale deed be validly executed for land that has already been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act?
No. Once acquisition proceedings have commenced and compensation deposited, no sale deed should be registered for such acquired land. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. What remedy is available to a person occupying acquired land who purchased it post-acquisition?
The occupant is not entitled to retain possession but may lodge a claim for compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector or District Judge. (Para 15 , 17 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 14076/2026 & CM APPL. 65874/2026 (for interim relief)
1. The present petition has been filed by Shri Triloki Nath Sharma son of late Shri Ramji Lal Sharma who is stated to have entered into a sale deed for a piece of land admeasuring 235 sq yards within Khasra No. 25/18, Village Shahipur (hereinafter “subject land”) between 16th March, 1966 to 23rd March, 1966.
2. According to the Petitioner, Khasra Girdawari of Village Sahipur records the Bhumidars in respect of the subject land as Chandgi Ram, Ram Swarup and Dayal Singh, who are stated to be the predecessors-in-interest of the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner also claims that Shri Fateh Chand Sharma, who had purchased the subject land, had bequeathed the property by registered Will on 8th December, 2009 to the beneficiaries which included the Petitioner. Thereafter, between the legal heirs, a partition deed is also stated to have been executed on 24th August, 2012.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in July, 2026, the inspection- cum-Nishan Dehi was done by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, GNCTD vide order dated 17th July, 2026 and the road widening project has been approved wherein the Petitioner’s property has been identified for demolition. The prayer, therefore, is that the order dated 17th July, 2026 by which the demolition is likely to take place be quashed.
5. On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Chetan Sharma, ld. ASG along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel for LAC and Mr. Sameer Vashist, Standing Counsel, GNCTD have made submissions. The case of the Respondents is that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 13th November, 1959 covering the revenue estate of Village Shahipur, Delhi. The same was acquired for the planned development of Delhi. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was issued on 15th July, 1966 and the Award 2119 of Village Shahipur covering Khasra No. 25/18 (1-07) was published on 28th June, 1968. It is also submitted that the possession of the said land was taken on 31st July, 1968.
6. It is submitted that the sale deed which has been executed in favour of the Petitioner’s grandfather i.e., Shri Fateh Chand, is subsequent to the Section 4 notification, by about six years. It is further submitted that the subject land which was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner was therefore not belonging to them at all and could not have been sold in favour of the Petitioner.
7. It is also submitted that the mutation in the revenue documents which is relied upon by the Petitioner is also recorded subsequent to the Award. The possession proceedings also took place on 31st July, 1968 and the compensation has also been deposited. In respect of the same, it is stated that the Revenue Deposit Register which records the deposit of the amount was received back by the LAC and finally an amount of Rs. 57,063.19/- has been deposited on 21st January, 1980.
8. The further submission is that a major infrastructure project of 24 meters wide road is held up because of the Petitioner’s property. The plan of the said road is also placed before the Court to argue that the commuters are facing enormous traffic congestion in the area because of the Petitioner’s property not being vacated.
9. In rejoinder, the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a suit had been filed by Shri Fateh Chand against the DDA in which some orders have been passed in favour of the Petitioner. However, the actual status of the suit as on date is not known to the Petitioner.
10. The Court has heard the Counsel for the parties. There is no doubt that Section 4 of the Notification has been issued way back on 13th November, 1959. This was followed by a Section 6 declaration and the deposit of the compensation amount.
11. Ideally, once the acquisition proceedings have commenced and the compensation has been deposit
