Delhi High Court
Brij Lal And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 May, 2026
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 6th May, 2026
Uploaded on: 8th May, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 6167/2026 & CM APPL. 30327/2026, CM APPL.
30328/2026
BRIJ LAL AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anuj Kumar Garg, Adv. (M:
9999310742)
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel, with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Mr. M. S. Akhtar & Mr. Kushagra
Dixit, Advs. for R-2 &3.
Mr. Pushkar Sood, Senior Panel
Counsel for DMRC & Mr. Samarth
Sood, Adv. for R-5.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, CGSC, Mr.
Anurag Pandey, Mr. Srajan S
Kulshrestha & Mr. Abhijit Singh,
Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh & Ms.
Laqshyaa Saluja, Advs. for DDA.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
sJUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh J.,(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by Mr. Brij Lal and Mrs. Sumitra
Devi through the legal heirs i.e., Mr. Rajindra Prashad and Mr. Pawan Kumar,
inter alia, assailing the acquisition of property being 10 biswa comprised in
Khasra No. 15/1/2/1, Village Aali, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereinafter,Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 1 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
‘subject land’).
3. The case of the Petitioners is that the subject land was acquired in 1986,
vide Award no. 206/86-87 dated 22nd September, 1986.
4. According to the Petitioners, the possession of the subject land was not
taken for a considerable period of time, and the physical possession was still
with the Petitioners.
5. Thereafter, the Petitioners had approached various authorities for
measurement and demarcation of the land.
6. A second notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter, ‘Act, 1894’) dated 25th November, 2009 was issued that the
subject land is likely to be acquired for the construction of the Central
Secretariat, Badarpur Corridor of DMRTS project.
7. In respect of the said notification dated 25th November, 2009, the
Petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 863/2010 titled ‘Sumitra Devi
v. Union of India‘ challenging the said notification. The said petition was
disposed of on 2nd May, 2011, permitting the Petitioner to file objections
under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. This is the first round of litigation. The
operative portion of the order dated 2nd May, 2011 is set out below:
“It has also been decided that there is no urgency in the
acquisition proceedings and thus the notification to the
extent It Invokes Section 17(1) and (4) of the LA Act to be
recalled and petitioners should be granted hearing of
their objections under Section 5A of the LA Act in
accordance with Law. The natural consequence is that
the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act would also
go qua the land of the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid consent recorded, the impugned
notification dated 25.11.2009 to the extent it InvokesSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 2 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
Section 17 (1) and (4) of the LA Act and the subsequent
declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act dated
12.3.2010 are quashed and the petitioners may file
objections under Section 5A of the LA Act within thirty
(30) days from today which objections will be decided In
accordance with law.”
8. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed an SLP before the Supreme Court
against the order dated 2nd May, 2011, being SLP(C)No. 15692/2011.The
said SLP was withdrawn on 6th June, 2011. The relevant portion of the said
order is set out below:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that special
leave petition be dismissed as withdrawn.
Ordered accordingly.
Liberty is granted, as prayed, to raise all relevant issues
before the concerned authorities.”
9. Pursuant thereto, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was
issued on 16th February, 2012.
10. The said declaration was challenged by the Petitioners in the second
writ petition being W.P.(C) 3095/2012 titled ‘Brij Lal & Ors. v. Union of
India‘.
11. In W.P.(C) 3095/2012, an order dated 22nd May, 2012 was passed,
granting status quo in the following terms:
“1. Learned counsel for petitioners and respondent
No.4 are not at variance that subject land ad-measuring
10 biswa comprised in Khasra No.15/1/2/1 in the
revenue estates of Village Aali is being acquired for
benefit of respondent No. 4. Thus, DDA, impleaded as
respondent No.2, would neither be a necessary nor a
proper party.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 3 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
2. We would need relevant record to be produced by
respondent No.3 containing the decision by the
competent authority with respect to notification dated
November 25, 2009 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Let a direction be issued to respondent No.3 who
should be served through the Secretary, Land and
Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi that an
officer not below the rank of a Section Officer shall
appear in court on the next date of hearing and produce
the relevant record dealing with the objections filed by
the petitioners under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. It may be indicated in the direction that the
officer concerned may appear through counsel on
17.07.2012.
4. In the meanwhile, possession of the petitioners, if
not already disturbed, be not disturbed till the next date
of hearing.
5. Dasti.”
12. In the meantime, the Award being 6/2013-2014 dated 30th December,
2013 came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, acquiring the
subject land.
13. The Right to Fair Compensation, and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, Act,
2013′) was notified on 1st January, 2014.
14. In the meantime, during the pendency of W.P.(C) 3095/2012, an
amendment application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 by the Petitioners, challenging the award being
6/2013-2014 dated 30th December, 2013.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 4 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
15. The W.P.(C) 3095/2012 was dismissed on 13th July, 2017 by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court. The findings recorded by the Court are as
under:
“[…]
8. The materials on record in the form of sketches and
the plan relied upon by the petitioner clearly show that
the suit lands fall within the larger boundary of the
DMRC’s lands. The DMRC has stated on record – a fact
which is not denied that all adjacent properties and
lands have been taken over and in fact, have been
developed as part of its depot complex. Clearly, what is
apparent from the plan is that possession of the suit
lands could not be taken on account of the interim
orders and not because the suit lands are kept outside of
the complex.
9. As to the petitioners’ contentions that there are other
lands in the vicinity and in the same village, the Court
is unpersuaded by the submission. The public purpose
for which DDA had notified other lands differs from
the public purpose for which lands were notified in the
impugned notification. That the suit lands fall within
the larger complex of the DMRC’s requirements is
quite evident from the record. In these circumstances,
the objections made by the petitioner under Section 5A
which have been virtually reiterated and on the basis
of which interim orders have operated for the past 5
years and in the Court’s opinion without any merit.
The writ petition fails and is therefore
dismissed.”
16. Thereafter, the Petitioners preferred an SLP being SLP(C) 7570/2026
against the order dated 13th July, 2017. The said SLP was also dismissed vide
order dated 9th October, 2017 which is set out below:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 5 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court; hence, the special
leave petition is dismissed.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
17. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioners had filed a third writ petition being
W.P.(C) 10158/2017 titled ‘Brij Lal & Ors. v. Union of India‘ seeking setting
aside of the Award being 6/2013-2014 dated 30th December, 2013 and
seeking compensation in terms of the proviso to Section 24 of the Act, 2013.
18. The W.P.(C) 10158/2017 was also dismissed vide order dated 3rd
December, 2025 with costs of Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter, the Petitioner had
approached the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 7550/2026, assailing the order
dated 3rd December, 2025, which was also dismissed vide order dated 9th
March, 2026.
19. Hence, the present petition has been preferred by the Petitioners.
20. The prayers in the W.P.(C) 10158/2017 are as under:
“A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing
/setting aside the impugned Award No. 06/2013-2014 dt
.30-12-2013 passed by respondent no.3/Land
Acquisition Collector (South-East)/ Divisional
Commissioner, New Delhi as illegal unjust and void ab-
inito as the same is contrary to the first proviso after
section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act 2013, and
B. further seeking a writ of Mandamus/ or any other
appropriate Writ directing the respondents to determine
and Pay the award/compensation to the petitioners /
Beneficiaries as per first proviso after Section 24 (2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and “Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement ActSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 6 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
2013 and
C. Impose exemplary cost upon respondents for passing
such impugned orders for harassing the petitioners,
D. Pass any other & further order or direction as may
be deemed fit, proper, necessary and expedient in the
interest of justice.”
21. As can be seen from the above prayers, the Petitioners’ case was that
the acquisition of the subject land ought to have lapsed in terms of Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013 and compensation ought to have been paid under the
Act, 2013.
22. Both the aforesaid prayers were rejected by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.P.(C) 10158/2017 vide order dated 3rd December, 2025, with the
clear finding that this is nothing but a case where the Petitioners are re-
agitating their claims in separate writ petitions.
23. The findings of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)
10158/2017 vide order dated 3rd December, 2025 are set out below:
“[…]
43. In this background, if we appreciate the above
pleadings of the petitioners, the fact remains that they
have already questioned the very Award dated 30th
December 2013 in the earlier petition i.e. in W.P.(C)
No.3095/2012 on the same grounds on which this Court
has already dwelled on the said issue in order dated
13th July 2017.
44. As such, in law for the reasons so discussed
hereinafter, we are of the view that it is not open for
the petitioners to re-open and reagitate the same issue
before this Court. An attempt on the part of the
petitioners to re-agitate the said issue can be viewed asSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 7 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
nothing but an abuse of process of law as the said issue
already stood concluded vide earlier order of this
Court.
45. In law, the finding recorded by this Court, thereby
dismissing the W.P.(C) No.3095/2012 vide order dated
13th July 2017 once has attained finality upto the
Hon’ble Apex Court, as the petitioners’ SLP came to be
dismissed on 9th October 2017, it is not open to the
petitioners to re-agitate the same.
46. It appears that since there was an operation of status
quo vide order dated 22nd May 2012 in regard to
possession in the W.P.(C) 3095/2012. After dismissal of
the said writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.3095/2012, the
petitioners approached the Hon’ble Apex Court through
an SLP, which also stood dismissed on 9th October
2017. Thereafter, the respondents have taken the
possession of the land on 3rd May 2018. The
possession having been lost by the petitioners is not a
fact in dispute.
xxxx
53. In such an eventuality, the only remedy available
with the petitioners is to have the compensation
released under the Award with statutory interest under
the Act of 1894 and not under the Act of 2013.”
24. In terms of paragraph 53 extracted hereinabove above, the Division
Bench of this Court had made it clear that the only remedy available to the
Petitioners is to claim compensation under the Act, 1894 and not under the
Act, 2013.
25. Today, the ld. Counsel for the Petitioners has made the following
submissions:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 8 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
(i) That the Petitioners are entitled to compensation in terms of
Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013.
(ii) That the Petitioners have made representations under Section 48
of the Act, 1894 and Section 21(a) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957
and the same ought to be considered in a time bound manner.
(iii) It is submitted that the Act, 2013, in fact, comes into effect on
19th December, 2013 and since the award is of 30th December, 2013,
the compensation under the new Act is payable.
26. In respect of all the three submissions, ld. Counsel for the Respondents
have pointed out that the same issues are being re-agitated from time to time,
and this is the fourth writ petition filed by the Petitioners.
27. Further, ld. Counsel for the Respondents also points out that none of
the provisions i.e., Section 48 of the Act, 1894 and Section 21(a) of the Delhi
Development Act, 1957 would be applicable in the present case.
28. The Court has considered the matter and has perused the records.
29. Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 is set out below:
” 24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of
1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in
certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894,–
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said
Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all
provisions of this Act relating to the determination
of compensation shall apply; or”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 9 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
30. Insofar as Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 is concerned, it is only if
no award under Section 11 was made under the Act, 1894, that the said
provision would be applicable.
31. The same has also been clarified by the Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
The relevant portion is set out below:
“[…]
123. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act deals with a
situation only where the award has been made 5
years or more before the commencement of the Act,
but physical possession of the land has not been
taken, nor compensation has been paid. It does not
visualise a situation where possession has been taken
under the urgency provision of Section 17(1), but the
award has not been made. In such cases, under
Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
entire proceedings : but compensation is to be
determined in accordance with the provisions of the
2013 Act.
XXX
191. Section 24(1)(a) operates where no award is
made in a pending acquisition proceeding; in such
event all provisions of the new Act relating to
determination of compensation would apply.
XXX
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date
of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse
of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined
under the provisions of the 2013 Act.”
32. Clearly, in this case, the impugned award has already been passed on
30th December, 2013. Hence, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 would not be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 10 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
applicable.
33. Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 reads as under:
“21. Disposal of land by the Authority or the local
authority concerned.–(1) Subject to any directions given
by the Central Government under this Act, the Authority
or, as the case may be, the local authority concerned may
dispose of–
(a) any land acquired by the Central Government and
transferred to it, without undertaking or carrying out any
development thereon; or
(b) any such land after undertaking or carrying out such
development as it thinks fit, to such persons, in such
manner and subject to such terms and conditions as it
considers expedient for securing the development of Delhi
according to plan.
(2) The powers of the Authority or, as the case may be, the
local authority concerned with respect to the disposal of
land under sub-section (1) shall be so exercised as to
secure, so far as practicable, that persons who are living
or carrying on business or other activities on the land
shall, if they desire to obtain accommodation on land
belonging to the Authority or the local authority concerned
and are willing to comply with any requirements of the
Authority or the local authority concerned as to its
development and use, have an opportunity to obtain
thereon accommodation suitable to their reasonable
requirements on terms settled with due regard to the price
at which any such land has been acquired from them:
Provided that where the Authority or the local authority
concerned proposes to dispose of by sale any land without
any development having been undertaken or carried out
thereon, it shall offer the land in the first instance to the
persons from whom it was acquired, if they desire to
purchase it subject to such requirements as to itsSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 11 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
development and use as the Authority or the local
authority concerned may think fit to impose.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as enabling the
Authority or the local authority concerned
to dispose of land by way of gift, mortgage or charge, but
subject as aforesaid reference in this Act to the
disposal of land shall be construed as reference to the
disposal thereof in any manner, whether by way of
sale, exchange or lease or by the creation of any easement
right or privilege or otherwise.”
34. Insofar as Section 21(a) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 is
concerned, the said provision would also not be applicable. The submissions
being made on behalf of the Petitioners would at best be covered under
proviso to Section 21(2). However, even the said proviso would apply only if
no development is being undertaken.
35. The map which has been placed on record is set out below:
36. Clearly, from the map which has been placed on record, the subject
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 12 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
land is presently with the DMRC, which is undertaking development. Thus,
proviso to Section 21(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 would also not
be applicable.
37. Finally, coming to the amount of compensation, ld. Counsel for the
Petitioners has clearly made an attempt to mislead the Court with the citing
of the order in W.P. (C) 11854/2018 titled ‘Sh. Dhanraj Singh Jain & Anr.
v. Union of India & Ors.‘ dated 31st January, 2025, passed by the Division
Bench of this Court, where an observation has been made in the passing that
the Act, 2013 has come into effect on 19th December, 2013.
38. However, the said order has been corrected subsequently vide orders
dated 6th March, 2025 and 2nd May, 2025, wherein it has been clarified that
the Act, 2013 came into effect on 1st January, 2014.
39. These orders were obviously in the knowledge of the
Petitioners/counsel but have not been brought to the notice of the Court. Such
conduct is completely not condonable.
40. In any event, there is no dispute that the Act, 2013 has come into effect
from 1st January, 2014 and the same is evident from a perusal of the bare act
itself.
41. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in respect of
the adjoining lands, the acquisition has lapsed. Unfortunately, the said fact
would not come to the aid of the Petitioners as, insofar as the Petitioners are
concerned, this is the fourth writ petition and on the earlier three occasions
the Petitioners had not been successful, and the same would bar the Petitioners
from raising any further submissions in this regard.
42. The present petition is, accordingly, without any merit and is dismissed.
As held by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 10158/2017
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 13 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
vide order dated 3rd December, 2025, the only remedy available for the
Petitioner is to seek compensation as per the Act, 1894, which the Petitioners
may seek in accordance with law.
43. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the LAC submits that when the
Petitioners were called for accepting the compensation, they did not do so, on
the ground that the SLP is pending.
44. Be that as it may, it is up to the Petitioners to collect the compensation
from the LAC’s office.
45. The present petition is dismissed with further costs of Rs. 25,000/-. All
pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
46. Both the cost amounts i.e., imposed vide order dated 3rd December,
2025 and as per today’s order, shall be deposited with the Delhi State Legal
Services. The bank details of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority are as
under:
● Name: Delhi State Legal Services Authority Cost Fund
● Account No.: 18580110053263
● IFSC Code: UCBA0003364
47. List for compliance on 28th May, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MAY 6, 2026
dj/sm
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6167/2026 Page 14 of 14
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
15:32:42
