1. Petition under Article 226 for compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Prem Singh Verma – Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2493/2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akhilesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Sunil Kumar Jha, M. S. Akhtar, Musarrat Benazeer Hasmi, Kushagra Dixit, Aman Singh, Qurratulain, Anil Kumar Goyal, Shagun Mishra
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akhilesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Sunil Kumar Jha, M. S. Akhtar, Musarrat Benazeer Hasmi, Kushagra Dixit, Aman Singh, Qurratulain, Anil Kumar Goyal, Shagun Mishra
A claimant seeking compensation for acquired land must establish a valid title, especially when the recorded owner differs from their predecessor-in-interest; disputed titles may be referred for adjudication under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Entitlement - Where the recorded owner of the acquired land differs from the predecessor-in-interest of the claimant, the claimant must prove title to the land to be eligible for compensation. (Para 13, 14)
(B) Procedural Remedy - Reference - In cases of disputed ownership or title, the Land Acquisition Collector is empowered to make a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for adjudication by the competent court. (Para 17, 19)
Issues: Whether the Petitioner is entitled to compensation for the subject land in view of the dispute regarding the recorded ownership.
Result: Petitioner permitted to file a claim petition; LAC directed to examine documents and make a reference if necessary.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. NHAI argued acquisition valid as award unchallenged; LAC argued petitioner failed to prove title as recorded owner was Manohar Lal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 )
3. No compensation paid to anyone; NHAI deposited compensation with LAC; ownership of subject land not proved by petitioner. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Where ownership is disputed and compensation deposited, the appropriate remedy is a claim before the LAC with a subsequent reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Para 17 )
5. Petitioner permitted to file a claim; LAC to examine documents and release compensation, with a reference to the ADJ if needed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. What is the appropriate remedy when the ownership of acquired land is disputed and compensation has been deposited?
The proper remedy is to file a claim before the Land Acquisition Collector, who may then make a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Additional District Judge for adjudication of the title dispute. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
7. Can a person claiming title through a post-notification purchase under an Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney claim compensation?
The court held that such a claimant must first prove their title before the Land Acquisition Collector, failing which the matter can be referred to the ADJ for adjudication under Sections 30 and 31 of the 1894 Act. (Para 13 , 17 , 19 )
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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter, ‘LAC’) and Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘DDA’) to pay compensation to the Petitioner in terms of Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, ‘Act, 2013’)
3. The brief background of the present case is that, the Petitioner claims rights in respect of land admeasuring 60 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No. 2/14/1 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Nangli Sakrawati, Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the subject land’).
4. This is the second writ petition filed by the Petitioner. In the earlier round, the Petitioner had filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3563/2016 titled ‘Prem Singh Verma v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors.’, wherein vide order dated 11th December, 2018, the Court had directed as under:
“[...]2. In view of the above statement of learned counsels for the Petitioner, the Court issues the following directions:
i. The Petitioners will appear before the LAC (SW) at Room No. 12, Old Terminal Tax Building, Kapashera, New Delhi- 110037 on 21st January, 2019 at 11 am with all the relevant documents,
ii. The LAC will treat the present petitions in so far as the demand for compensation is concerned as a representation and will proceed to decide whether the Petitioners are entitled to the relief of compensation that they are praying for in terms of the 2013 Act.
iii. Before coming to the above decision, the LAC will permit the Petitioners or their authorised representatives to inspect the relevant record in his presence and permit them to advance submissions on the basis thereof.
iv. The decision of the LAC with reasons will be communicated to each of the Petitioners within a period of eight weeks after the hearing.
3. If the Petitioners are aggrieved by decisions of the LAC, they are free to pursue other proper remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law.
4. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.”
5. As per the above order, the Petitioner was to appear before the LAC, and the petitions were to be considered as the Petitioners’ representation for compensation, and after considering the petitions, the LAC was to proceed in terms of the Act, 2013.
6. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner had approached the LAC. However, the LAC, vide order dated 19th August, 2019 observed as under:
“With reference to the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of W.P.(C) 3563/2016. title as Prem Singh Verma Vs LAC & Ors. and W.P.(C) 4844/2016 title as Devi Lal Vs LAC & Ors. dated 11/12/2018. Sh. Prem Singh Verma S/o Ram Saroop R/o Plot No. 101, Laxmi Vihar. Nangli Sakrawati, Najafgarh, New Delhi, GPA Holder Notorised, Devi Lal S/o Jiva Ram. GPA Holder Notorised and Jitender, UDC, LA Branch appear before the undersigned on 14/03/19. The petitioners accompanied by their counsel Sh. A. K. Singh, Advocate submitted that they are possession of the suit lands and staying in the house constructed by them.
Representative of LA branch informed that as per the award records, the owner is shown in the name of Sh. Manoharlal S/o Kishan Chand R/o Village Nangli Sakrawati as per N.M.
As per the report of the kanungo LAC dated 28/07/2019, which is reproduced below “ Kh. No. 2//13/2 (1-07), 2//14/2 (2-11) acquired vide Award No. 13/2008-09 of Village Nangli Sakrawati and possession of Kh. No. 2//13/2 (1-7) and 2//14/1 (2-5) has been taken on 10/02/2012 and Kh. No. 2//14/1 (0-6) possession has not been taken. In respect of Kh. No. 2//16 min and 2//25 min has not been acquired vide award no. 13/2008-09".
Above order is based on Award No. 13/2008-09 based on the report submitted by Kanungo, LAC Branch.”
7. As can be seen from the aforesaid ord
