Delhi High Court – Orders
Harvinder Singh Batra & Anr vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Through … on 10 April, 2026
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 248/2026
HARVINDER SINGH BATRA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rana S. Biswas, Mr. Yash
Tripathi & Mr. Kartik Chettiar,
Advocates.
versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH DIVISIONAL
RETAIL HEAD & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Divye Chugh, Ms. Priya
Wadhwa, Mr. Rachit Raushan and
Mr. Angel Bhardwaj, Advocates for
R1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 10.04.2026
CM APPL. 23218/2026 & CM APPL. 23219/2026
1. These Applications have been filed on behalf of the Appellants
seeking condonation of delay of 37 days in filing and of 01 day in re-filing
the present Letters Patent Appeal, respectively.
2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the
averments made in the Applications seeking condonation of delay in filing
and re-filing the instant Appeal, we are satisfied that the delay is sufficiently
been explained.
3. Accordingly, the Application is allowed and the delay of 1 day in
filing and 37 days in re-filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
4. The Applications stand disposed of.
LPA 248/2026
5. Issue Notice to the Respondents.
LPA 248/2026 Page 1 of 4
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 20:51:51
6. On behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Divye Chugh, the learned
Counsel puts in appearance and accepts Notice.
7. This intra Court Appeal seeks to challenge an order dated 14.01.2026
(“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby W.P.(C)
17700/2025 (“Writ Petition”) instituted by the Appellants has been
dismissed. The learned Single Judge, by passing the Impugned Order, has
refused to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 by observing that it is impermissible for a writ
court to undertake an enquiry in respect of ownership of the land in question
or into disputed question of facts. On the said count, the learned Single
Judge has granted liberty to the Appellants to institute the civil suit.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the
records available before us in this Letters Patent Appeal, we notice the
following undisputed facts:
i. The land in question comprises in Khasra Nos. 992/2, 993 and
2056/994 (“Subject Land”).
ii. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(“Act”) was issued on 24.10.1961.
iii. After considering the objections under Section 5 of the Act, a
notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 07.12.1966
in respect of an area admeasuring 683 bhigas and 9 biswas.
iv. The Subject Land is said to be within the said area of land, which
stood acquired on issuance of the notification under Section 6 of
the Act on 07.12.1966.
v. The predecessor-in-interest executed a lease in favour of the
Respondent-Corporation on 02.04.1969. The term of the said lease
LPA 248/2026 Page 2 of 4This 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 20:51:51
was 20 years, which was renewable for another 20 years. The said
lease admittedly was renewed on 25.05.1999, the term of which
expired in the year 2021.
9. It is also on record that thereafter, certain steps were taken by the
Appellants as also by the Respondent-Corporation to get the lease renewed,
however, for certain reasons the same could not be renewed. In the aforesaid
factual circumstances, the Appellants instituted the Writ Petition before the
learned Single Judge with the prayer that the Respondent-Corporation be
directed to pay the rent to the Appellants for the reason that even after
expiry of the term of the said lease, though certain steps were taken for the
renewal of the same, the Respondent-Corporation has not vacated its
possession from the Subject Land.
10. It appears that the stand taken by the Respondent-Corporation before
the learned Single Judge was that since the title of the Appellants in the
Subject Land is disputed, as the Subject Land stood acquired way back in
the year 1966 pursuant to which an award bearing No. 18/75-76 was also
declared, the Appellants cannot claim any rent.
11. Admittedly, the land in question has not been vacated where the
Respondent-Corporation is running a retail petrol pump.
12. In any case, either the Subject Land belongs to the Appellants or it
belongs to the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”). The learned Counsel
for the Appellants has brought to our notice a reply given by the DDA under
Right to Information Act, 2005 vide letter dated 12.04.2024, wherein the
DDA has admitted that possession of the land in question, which forms part
of the award 18/75-76, has not been handed over to the DDA on account of
some stay order.
LPA 248/2026 Page 3 of 4
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 20:51:51
13. Referring to the said information furnished by the DDA, our attention
has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the Appellants to the provisions
of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 stating that
since the physical possession has not been taken, the acquisition proceedings
in respect of the Subject Land would lapse by operation of Section 24(2) of
the said Act.
14. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, we are of the opinion that in
the interest of justice, the DDA also needs to be heard in this Appeal.
Accordingly, we direct that the DDA, through its Vice-Chairman, be
impleaded as Party Respondent No. 3. Let an amended Memo of Parties be
filed by the learned Counsel for the Appellants within a week.
15. Issue Notice to the newly impleaded Respondent No. 3, returnable on
28.07.2026.
16. It is also noticed that since the year 2021 no rent has been paid by the
Respondent-Corporation either to the Appellants or to the DDA.
Accordingly, we direct the Respondent-Corporation to pay the entire amount
of the rent approved at the rate mentioned in the renewed lease deed dated
25.05.1999 within a period of six weeks. The amount to be deposited under
this order shall be kept in an interest-bearing account with the Nationalised
Bank. We further provide that the deposit being made under this Order shall
be subject to the outcome of this Appeal.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
TEJAS KARIA, J
APRIL 10, 2026/sms
LPA 248/2026 Page 4 of 4
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 20:51:51