The court held that where a party claims compensation for land already acquired and possessed by the state, the Land Acquisition Collector must examine the validity of the claim or relegate the party to a civil court for title determination.

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to determine and release the compensation to the Petitioner in respect of Award No. 1/2000-2001/DC (North-West).

3. The case of the Petitioner is that he has rights in the land ad- measuring 5 bighas 13 biswas comprised in Khewat No. 66, Khatauni No. 142, Village Chowkri Mubarakabad, New Rohtak Road, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. According to the Petitioner, the said land is now referred to as property No. 17/6. The Petitioner claims to have acquired knowledge only in 2026 that the subject land has been acquired. This position is severely disputed by the LAC.

4. In fact, the Petitioner’s case is that he had filed another writ petition being W.P.(Crl.)No.15/2024 titled ‘ Amin Ur Rehman v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi ’ in which the following prayers were made:-

“a. Issue an appropriate Writ including a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to ensure life, liberty and property of the petitioner admeasuring 5 bighas 13 biswas in khewat no. 66 khatauni no. 142 in the area of Village Chowkri Mubarakabad, New Rohtak Road, Near Railway Line, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi presently known as property bearing old nos. 6/1 and 6/5 (now New No. 17/6) situated at New Rohtak Road, Daya Basti, Delhi-110035 from miscreants/ antisocial elements as the petitioner is lawfully entitled to full and unobstructed, unimpeded; use, possession and enjoyment of the same.

b. Issue an appropriate Writ including a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents particularly respondent no. 3 for discharging public duty instead of creating any hindrance/obstruction with the use, possession and enjoyment of the property as mentioned above; and

c. Pass such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. W.P. (Crl.) No. 15/2024 was decided vide order dated 5th September, 2024 in the following terms:-

“CRL.M.A. 26810/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 15/2024

1. An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of petitioner for directing respondent No.2/DCP, North District, New Delhi to ensure safety of life and property of the petitioner.

2. Issue notice. Learned ASC for State/respondents appears on advance notice and accepts notice.

3. In brief, petitioner claims to be the recorded owner of property measuring 5 bighas 13 biswas in Khewat No.66 Khatauni No.142 in the area of Village Chowkri Mubarakbad, New Rohtak Road, Near Railway Line, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. Further a complaint to DCP alongwith other authorities is stated to have been made by petitioner on 01.04.2021 alleging that some anti-social elements tried to trespass the property with intention to raise illegal construction.

4. On the other hand, status report has been filed on behalf of State/respondent No.1, which reflects that ownership of aforesaid property is disputed by government agency i.e. DSIIDC which had stopped the work carried out by petitioner. It is further submitted that the dispute as to ownership of property needs to be resolved through civil litigation, in case, petitioner has any grievance against DSIIDC.

5. Apparently, status report filed on behalf of respondent No.1/State reflects that construction, if any, carried out by petitioner is disputed by DSIIDC claiming to be owners of property. In case, petitioner has any grievance, the same can be adjudicated in civil proceedings between the parties. It is also pertinent to note that DSIIDC has not been impleaded as party in the present petition.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that disputed question of ownership between the parties cannot be adjudicated by way of present petition and need to be adjudicated before