Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar And Anr vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th May, 2026
Uploaded on: 7th May, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 4957/2026 & CM APPL. 24375/2026
SATISH KUMAR AND ANR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Ms
Renu, Mr. Swagata Gupta, Adv.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak SC with
Mrs. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar,
Miss Joohu Kumari & Mr. Kushagra
Dixit, Advs.
Mr Arjun Mahajan SC, Ms Monica
Batra Adv, Mr Apoorv Upmanyu, Mr
Ravikant Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners- Mr. Satish Kumar
and Mr. Jagdish under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia,
assailing the acquisition of land admeasuring 05 Biswas out of total land of 2
Bighas, 11 Biswas, in Khasra No. 28/4/2 (min.) situated in Village Bamnoli,
Tehsil Kapashera, District South West (hereinafter, ‘the subject land’).
3. The case of the Petitioners is that the subject land was never acquired
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 4957/2026 Page 1 of 8
NEGI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
09:42:50
by the authorities and possession was also not taken. Further, it is also
contended that the acquisition of the subject land has lapsed, pursuant to
Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
4. Furthermore, Mr. Mishra, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the
document filed before the concerned District Judge, Dwarka Courts,
concerning the proceedings of the subject land, wherein, the clear stand of the
LAC is that the possession of subject land was not taken.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Pathak, ld. Counsel for the Land Acquisition
Collector (hereinafter, ‘LAC’), relies upon the final judgment of this Court
dated 15th April, 2019 in W.P.(C) 1643/2016 titled ‘Satish Kumar and Ors.
v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.‘. Vide the said judgment, the issue raised
in the present petition has already been considered by a Coordinate bench of
this Court, and it was held that no relief would be liable to be granted.
6. The Court has considered the matter. A perusal of the final judgment
dated 15th April, 2019 in Satish Kumar and Ors. (Supra) would show that in
the said judgment, all the aspects which are today sought to be canvassed in
the present petition, have already been considered by a Coordinate bench of
this Court.
7. The relevant portions of the judgement dated 15th April, 2019 in Satish
Kumar and Ors. (Supra) are set out below:
“2. The Petitioners state that they are the recorded
owners of the aforementioned land ad-measuring 01
bigha and 01 biswa comprising in khasra No.
28//4/1 min., situated in Village-Bamnoli, District-
South-West, New Delhi. It is stated that the
Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are co-owners of land
admeasuring 5 biswas, each of them having halfSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 4957/2026 Page 2 of 8
NEGI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
09:42:50
share. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are stated to be the
owners of 04 biswas each and the predecessors-in-
interest of Petitioner No.6 (i) to (vii) was the owner
of 04 biswas. It is stated that the khasra No. 28//4/1
min. is the post consolidation number after the
acquisition proceedings took place in the said
village in 1997.
3. The land in question was sought to be acquired
by issuance of a notification dated 4th November
2004 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (‘LAA’). This notification was in respect of
2100 bighas and 06 biswas of land in village-
Bamnoli and was for the public purpose of Dwarka
Phase-II. This was followed by a declaration under
Section 6 LAA on 31st October 2005. The Award
No. 01/2007-08 was passed on 6th August 2007.
4. Earlier, Petitioners 1 to 5 filed
W.P.(C)6686/2007 challenging the
aforementioned Award. The said writ petition was
dismissed by this Court on 16th May 2008.
5. The Petitioners claim that compensation qua 01
biswa of land in khasra No. 28//4/1 min. was paid to
Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 and that payment qua
remained 03 biswas was withheld on some pretext.
It was claimed that compensation was never offered
to Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6. It is further stated that
the Land Acquisition Collector (‘LAC’) deposited
the compensation amount in the Court of the learned
Additional District Judge (‘ADJ’) in August 2010.
By a judgment dated 11th July 2011, the learned
ADJ disposed of the reference permitting the
interested persons and the land owners with liberty
to withdraw the compensation qua the respective
lands against bank guarantee. A separate order was
made in that regard by the learned ADJ for theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 4957/2026 Page 3 of 8
NEGI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
09:42:50
interest amount.
6. It is stated that the further application filed by the
interested persons before the learned ADJ for
modification of the order dated 11th July 2011 was
disposed of by permitting them to withdraw the
compensation against their individual security
rather than bank guarantee. The LAC thereafter on
25th September 2013 deposited Rs. 2,99,03,662/- by
a cheque dated 3rd September 2013.
7. The Petitioners stated that the LAC itself
informed the Reference Court that as far as the
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was concerned out of the
total land of 02 bighas 11 biswas, possession of 05
biswas was not taken and accordingly the
corresponding payment for that extent of land has
not been released. As regards Petitioner 6 (i) to
(vii), of the total land of 02 bighas and 10 biswas,
possession of 04 biswas was not taken. The
Petitioners state that compensation for the land not
yet taken possession of has not been paid till now.
It is on the above basis it is contended on behalf of
the Petitioners that notwithstanding the dismissal
of the earlier writ petition challenging the Award,
they would be entitled to a declaration of deemed
lapsing of land acquisition proceedings under
Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013. (‘the
2013 Act’).
8. The counter affidavits filed by both LAC and DDA
consistently maintain that possession of the land in
question was taken on 6th May 2010, although, the
possession proceedings, therefore, have not been
enclosed. The further consistent stand is regarding
the deposit of the compensation amount in the Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 4957/2026 Page 4 of 8
NEGI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
09:42:50
of the learned ADJ. The details of the actual
compensation paid to some of the land
owners/interested persons have also been set out in
paragraph 8 of the reply filed by the LAC. This has
been corroborated in a separate reply filed by the
DDA. The rejoinder affidavits of the Petitioners are
a mere reiteration of the averments in the petition.
9. There are several difficulties in granting the
Petitioners the relief as prayed for by them. In the
first place as regards possession of the lands which
they claim has not been taken, it is seen that it
comprises only a small portion of the entire extent
land sought to be acquired by the Respondents.
Even in this regard the question whether the LAC
took over the possession of the entire land on 6th
May 2010, or as contented by the Petitioners, a
small extent was still left with the Petitioners, is a
disputed question of fact which cannot possibly be
examined in these proceedings.
10. Even as regards compensation, considering
that the learned ADJ passed a final order in the
reference, followed by an order regarding payment
of interest thereon, it cannot be said in this case
that no compensation was ever tendered by the
LAC. Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the
Petitioners that the either of the two conditions for
attracting Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act stand
conclusively fulfilled. On the contrary, on the facts
of the present case, the Petitioners have failed to
make out a convincing case that neither has
compensation been tendered nor has the
possession been taken of the entire lands in
question by the Respondents.
11. Apart from the disputed questions of fact, the
Petitioners having earlier been unsuccessful in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 4957/2026 Page 5 of 8
NEGI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
09:42:50
challenging the land acquisition proceedings,
cannot be permitted to have an another round of
litigation, this time for seeking the deemed lapsing
of the land acquisition proceedings. In this context
the following observations of the Supreme Court in
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
(2018) 3 SCC 412 are relevant:
“130. We are of the view that stale or
dead claims cannot be the subject-matter
of judicial probing under section 24 of the
Act of 2013. The provisions of section 24
do not invalidate those judgment/orders
of the courts where under rights/claims
have been lost/negatived, neither do they
revive those rights which have come
barred, either due to inaction or
otherwise by operation of law.
Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all
to be raised under the guise of section 24.
Misuse of provisions of section 24(2)
cannot be permitted. Protection by the
courts in cases of such blatant misuse of
the provisions of law could never have
been the intention behind enacting the
provisions of section 24 (2) of the 2013
Act; and, by the decision laid down in
Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), and
this Court never, even for a moment,
intended that such cases would be
received or entertained by the courts.”
12. It may be noted here that the reference made by
a Constitution Bench in Indore Development
Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) 4 SCC 405
regarding the correctness of the aforesaid decision
in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
(supra) is only as regards the extent to which it
differs from the earlier view of the Supreme Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 4957/2026 Page 6 of 8
NEGI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
09:42:50
in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki (supra) regarding the tendering
of compensation, and on certain other issues but not
on the question of petitions seeking declaration
under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act being barred
by laches. This legal position was explained by this
Court recently in Mool Chand v. Union of India
2019 (173) DRJ 595 DB.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition
is dismissed. The interim order dated 26th
February 2016 which stood confirmed on 18th
January 2018 stands vacated.”
8. Thus, the issue pertaining to the subject land of 05 biswas has already
been considered by this Court, as evident from paragraph 7, extracted
hereinabove.
9. In addition, the Coordinate bench of this Court has also considered the
decision of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar
Lal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 and has held that the petition would not be
maintainable.
10. Accordingly, the same issue cannot now be canvassed in a fresh writ
petition, which would be the third round.
11. Under these circumstances, the present petition is not maintainable and
is accordingly dismissed.
12. If any remedy for claiming compensation is still available, the
Petitioners are at liberty to avail of the same, in accordance with law.
13. If such a claim for compensation is filed by the Petitioners, the LAC
shall verify whether the compensation in respect of the subject land has been
paid or not and if not, the same shall be released to the Petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 4957/2026 Page 7 of 8
NEGI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
09:42:50
14. The present petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MAY 5, 2026/prg/sm
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 4957/2026 Page 8 of 8
NEGI
Signing Date:07.05.2026
09:42:50
