Delhi High Court – Orders
Rajender Sharma vs Union Of India Through Land Acquisition … on 13 April, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4841/2026 & CM APPL. 23715/2026
RAJENDER SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Arvind Sharma, Advocate along
with the Petitioner.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION
COLLECTOR (LAC) .....Respondent
Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mr Sunil Kumar Jha &
Mr Mohd Sueb Akhtar, Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER
% 13.04.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 23715/2026 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4841/2026
3. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ
directing the LAC to refer the application filed by the Petitioner seeking
enhancement of compensation to the concerned Reference Court.
4. The present is a case where the Petitioner has been running from pillar
to post to get the order dated 30th September, 2024 passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 12187/2024 titled ‘Rajender Sharma v.
Union of India through Land Acquisition Collector’, implemented by the
Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter ‘LAC’).
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 1 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:14:01
5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner’s land bearing
Khasra No. 1/422 was acquired and in respect thereof, a notice under Section
4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 12th April, 2006 followed by declaration
under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 22nd May, 2006 were
issued. The Award bearing no. 2/2007-08 (North-East) was passed on 31st
December, 2007. Objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 in respect thereof regarding the compensation amount were also filed by
the Petitioner on 28th February, 2008.
6. While the reference which was made to the ld. ADJ remained pending,
the market value of the land was enhanced to Rs.21,920/- per sq. mtr. in a
similar matter and in respect thereof, the certified copy of the award was also
prepared. The Petitioner then moved an application under Section 28A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of his compensation which was
to be considered by the LAC. However, the reference petition qua the
Petitioner was dismissed.
7. The Petitioner then filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 4286/2016 titled
Rajender Sharma v. Union of India & Anr.
8. Parallelly, the Reference Court had again enhanced the compensation
amount in another judgment to Rs.48,000/-. In the writ petition i.e., W.P.(C)
4286/2016 filed before the ld. Division Bench of this Court, the Court passed
an order dated 20th May, 2019 wherein it was directed as under:
“4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29th
March, 2016 passed by the LAA, Shahdara is hereby
set aside. A direction is issued to the LAC, Shahdara to
refer the Petitioner’s application under Section 28-A
of the LAA to the Court of the learned Additional
District Judge, Shahdara for determining whether the
Petitioner is entitled to the enhanced compensation inW.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 2 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:14:01
terms of Section 28-A of the LAA. The needful be done
within a period of six weeks from today.”
9. As can be seen from the above, six weeks time was given for disposal
of the Petitioner’s application filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The Petitioner had to again approach the LAC by way of fresh
applications. However, no action was taken by the LAC. This led to filing of
a further writ petition being W.P.(C) 12187/2024 titled Rajender Sharma v.
Union of India Through Land Acquisition Collector which was disposed of
by this Court on 30th September, 2024. The said order reads as under:
“1. We had on 23 September 2024, after hearing
counsels for respective sides, passed the following
order:
“1. The petitioner has filed the present petition,
inter-alia, praying that his application under
Section IS and 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereafter the LA Act) be considered by the
LAC.
2. On 02.09.2024, Mr. Pathak, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent had taken time to
take instructions in regard to the petitioner’s
prayer. He, now, submits that at the first instance,
it would be necessary for LAC to decide the
petitioner’s application.
3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had, by an
order dated 15.12.2021 issued the directions to the
LAC to itself examine the petitioner’s application
under Section 28 A of the LA Act. The relevant
extract of the said order reads as under:
“We have heard learned counsels on both the
applications. It is clarified that by the
impugned order dated 29.03.2016, the
application of the petitioner under Section 28
A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been
‘filed’ by him. The direction issued to the LACW.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 3 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:14:01
Shahdara is modified to read that he shall
himself examine the application of the
petitioner under Section 28 A of the Land
Acquisition Act in the first instance.”
4. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Pathak, the
learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, again seeks time to take
instructions in this regard. 5. List on
24.09.2024.”
2. The solitary grievance of the writ petitioner is with
respect to the non-consideration and disposal of its
application under Sections 18 and 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states
that subject to verification of all facts and contentions
on merits being open, the said application shall be duly
examined and an appropriate order disposing of the
same passed in accordance with law. He further submits
that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed with due
expedition and preferably within a period of eight weeks
from today. The statement so made is recorded and
accepted.
4. The writ petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.”
10. As can be seen from the above order, on behalf of the LAC, the Court
had recorded the statement that the Petitioner’s applications filed under
Sections 18 and 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be disposed of
expeditiously within a period of 8 weeks. Unfortunately, however, till date,
the Petitioner has had to undergo a gruelling process before the LAC wherein
notices dated 13th March, 2025, 2nd July, 2025, 2nd September, 2025 and 17th
October, 2025 have been issued for hearing and on each date the matter has
been adjourned again and again. Though the Petitioner has repeatedly visited
the LAC’s office, the order dated 30th September, 2024 has not been given
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 4 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:14:01
effect to.
11. The Petitioner himself is present in Court today and he submits that the
official of the LAC has been extremely disrespectful and has repeatedly made
the Petitioner visit the LAC’s office. He has named the officer in charge – Mr.
Himanshu Srivastava who is alleged to have told the Petitioner to go and
obtain the orders from the High Court in his case.
12. Clearly, this kind of conduct cannot be condoned by this Court.
Repeated orders have been passed in favour of the Petitioner. Firstly, in 2019
and again in 2024 directing a time-bound disposal. However, it appears that
the LAC is not in a mood to comply with the same.
13. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had in fact
prepared a contempt petition and made advance service of the same to the
LAC. At which stage, the LAC started issuing notices and had expressed an
intention to comply with the orders. However, no action has been taken till
date.
14. This Court is of the opinion that strict action would be liable to be taken
against the LAC in this matter.
15. Accordingly, let Mr. Himanshu Srivastava be personally present in
Court on the next date of hearing. He shall also file a personal affidavit
explaining his conduct by the next date of hearing.
16. Mr. Pathak, ld. Standing Counsel for the LAC at this stage submits that
Mr. Srivastava may not be the in-charge of the Petitioner’s case.
17. It is made clear that issue is not about any specific official but about
compliance with court orders. Firstly, Mr. Srivastava has a duty to explain to
this Court as to his conduct. Secondly, whoever is the official in-charge of the
Petitioner’s case from the office of the LAC shall also remain physically
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 5 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:14:01
present on the next date of hearing.
18. List on 23rd April, 2026 in the supplementary list.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MADHU JAIN, J.
APRIL 13, 2026
Rahul/ck
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 6 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:14:01
