Delhi High Court
Shaban Khan & Anr vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 12 February, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~28 to 30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th February, 2026
Uploaded on : 17th February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 6159/2024 & CM APPLs. 25642/2024, 54684/2024,
54606/2025, 54607/2025 & 3610/2026
SHABAN KHAN & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor and Mr. Kaushal
Mehta, Advs. (M:8076682348)
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Panel Counsel,
GNCTD with Mr. Dhruv Kumar &
Mrs. Chandrika Sachdev, Advs. for
R-4. (M:9891558131)
Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Ujjwal
Jain, Advs. for R-4. (M:8700463411)
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing
Counsel DDA & Mr. Ashutosh
Kaushik, Advocate & Mr. Shubham
Bansal, Patwari DDA.
(M:9711070545)
Ms. Maldives Sidhu, Adv. for R-5.
29 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 12543/2024 & CM APPL. 52186/2024
SHABAN KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor and Mr. Kaushal
Mehta, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 1 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
Counsel DDA & Mr. Ashutosh
Kaushik, Advocate & Mr. Shubham
Bansal, Patwari DDA.
Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. for R-4.
(M:8383031929)
30 AND
+ W.P.(C) 6194/2024 & CM APPL. 25754/2024
AKIL AHMAD & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor and Mr. Kaushal
Mehta, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil
Kumar Jha & Mr. M. S. Akhtar,
Advs. for R-1 & 2. (M:9711684779)
Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Ujjwal
Jain, Advs. for GNCTD.
Ms. Maldives Sidhu, Adv. for R-5.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These are three connected writ petitions which have been filed by the
Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking
the following reliefs:
W.P.(C) 6159/2024 and W.P.(C) 6194/2024:
“a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
land acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent no.
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 2 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
1 in respect of land bearing khasra no. 315 (3-10), 343
(4-16) & 344/1 (4-09), in Village Pul Pehladpur, New
Delhi, arising out of Award no. 63/1982-83, under the
provisions of section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013;
b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents no. 1 to 4 to demarcate land bearing khasra
no. 315 (3-10) in Village Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi.
arising out of Award no. 63/1982-83 in favour of the
petitioners wrt their 2/5 th share from rest of the land
falling in Khasra No. 315
c) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents no. 1 to 6 not to disturb the peaceful
possession of petitioners in respect of subject land;
d) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents no. 6 to take action on the complaint of the
petitioners dated 30.03.2024 and protect the subject
land from encroachment by respondents and land
grabbers;
e)Pass any such order as this Hon’ble court deems fit
and proper in the interest of justice.”
W.P.(C) 12543/2024
“a) Issue writ in the nature of prohibition restraining
the respondent no. 1-4 from taking any action in
furtherance of order dated 17.05.2024 passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP bearing Diary No.
28141 of 2021 titled “DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool & Ors.”
with respect to 1/5th share of petitioner in land falling
in Khasra Nos 315 (3-10), 343 (4-16), 344/1 (4- 09),
Village Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi having lapsed by
virtue of section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act 2013;
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 3 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
b) Issue writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the
respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from his
1/5th share in land falling in Khasra Nos 315 (3-10),
343 (4-16), 344/1 (4-09), Village Pul Pehladpur, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “subject land”),
arising out of Award no. 63/1982-83, having lapsed by
virtue of section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act 2013;
c) Grant relief of clarification to the effect that
Judgment/ order dated 17.05.2024 passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP bearing Diary No. 28141 of 2021
titled “DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool & Ors.” shall not have
any bearing on the merits of writ petitions, WP C No.
6159/2024 titled “Shaban Khan and Anr. versus
GNCTD and Ors.” and WP. C No. 6194/2024 titled
“Akil Ahmad and Anr. versus GNCTD and Ors.”
pending before this Hon’ble Court;
d) Call for entire record of SLP bearing Diary No.
28141 of 2021 titled “DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool and
Ors.” from Respondent no.1-3 and Respondent no.5;
e) Pass any such order as this Hon’ble court deems fit
and proper in the interest of justice.”
Factual Background
3. The Petitioners in the present petitions are claiming rights in respect of
land bearing Khasra Nos.315 (3-10), 343(4-16) and 344/1 (4-09), Village Pul
Pehladpur, New Delhi. It is their case that they have rights through late Sh.
Bunda, who was their predecessor in interest. It is claimed that the name of
Sh. Bunda is reflected in the land records, including Jamabandi as also
Khasra Girdawri in respect of the said Khasra Nos.315 (3-10), 343(4-16) and
344/1 (4-09), Village Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi.
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 4 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
4. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter, ‘Act, 1894’) was issued on 23rd January, 1965 in respect of
Khasra Nos.315, 343 and 344/1, for acquisition of the land. This was followed
by a notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, which was issued on 13th
January, 1969.
5. Subsequently, a writ petition being C.W.P. No. 3266/1982 was filed
wherein vide order dated 14th September, 1982, the following interim relief
was granted:
“The petitioners will not be dispossessed of the land in
question till the next date. Dasti.”
6. Thereafter, Respondent No.2- Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter,
‘LAC’) passed Award No. 63/1982-83 dated 31st January, 1983 (hereinafter,
‘the Award’) for acquisition of large tracts of land in Village Pul Pehladpur,
New Delhi. Khasra Nos.315, 343 and 344/1 were part of the land acquired
vide the said Award.
7. Pursuant thereto, possession proceedings were initiated in respect of
the Award on 4th March,1983 and the following was recorded in the
possession proceedings:
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 5 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
8. A perusal of the above recorded possession proceedings shows the
following:
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 6 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
(i) Insofar as the Khasra No.315 min (3-0) is concerned, jhuggis and
houses are built up thereon;
(ii) In respect of Khasra No.311-315 min (0-10) it is recorded that there
was a stay against possession granted by the High Court;
(iii) In respect of remaining land forming part of Khasra No.315 and the
land falling in Khasra Nos. 311-315 min (271-0), 343 (4-16), 344 (4-
16), the physical possession has been taken over at site and handed over
to the Land and Building Department by the representative of the
acquiring authority.
(iv) The only land that was left out from the possession was Khasra No.315
min (3-0) and 311-315 min (0-10).
9. Thereby, the possession of the land forming part of Khasra Nos. 315,
343 and 344, was taken over by the Government.
10. It is agreed that some parts of Khasra No.315 were left out from
possession. The aforesaid possession proceedings are clear as to the extent of
the land with respect of which the possession was taken over.
11. Subsequent to the passing of the Award and possession proceedings,
writ petition being C.W.P. No. 3266/1982 was dismissed for non-prosecution.
12. Insofar as the compensation amount issued pursuant to the possession
proceedings are concerned, the details are set out below:
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 7 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
13. The legal heirs claiming rights through late Sh. Bunda filed three writ
petitions seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of
land falling in Khasra Nos. 315, 343, 344 have lapsed by virtue of Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair compensation and Land Acquisition Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013.The said three writ petitions and the details
thereof are relevant and set out below:
S. No. Petition No. Title
1 W.P.(C) 7716/2014 MOHD. MAQBOOL & ANR.
Versus
GOVT. N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS.
2 W.P.(C) 8912/2014 SHAKRUDDIN & ORS.
Versus
GOVT. N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS.
3 W.P.(C) 573/2015 JAN MOHAMMAD
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 8 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
Versus
GOVT. N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS.
14. The aforesaid three writ petitions were disposed of by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 11th April, 2017 following the decision
of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v.
Harakchand Misirinal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183. On the basis of
the said judgment, it was held that the land acquisition proceedings in respect
of the land admeasuring Khasra Nos.315 (3-10), 343 and 344/1 had lapsed.
The order dated 11th April, 2017 is extracted as under:
” The brief facts are that the suit lands were covered by
the Notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on
10.11.1960; declaration under Section 6 was published
on 06.01.1969. Notices were apparently issued to the
land owners and the suit lands were covered by Award
No.63/1982-83. Apparently, the petitioner had
approached this Court and challenged the acquisition.
The Court had directed maintenance of status quo and
required the respondents to not dispossess the
petitioners. The petitioners submit in these
circumstances that since the possession was not taken
nor was compensation paid, the acquisition had
elapsed.
It is also submitted that the judgment in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and the
other subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court
which have examined the effect of absence of
provisions similar to the proviso to Section 11A and
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is pending
consideration before the larger three Judge Bench.
The respondents, i.e., LAC in the counter affidavit
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 9 of 29Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
avers that the lands were acquired for the purpose of
land development of Delhi and that substantial parts
thereof was in fact taken over after the Award on
04.03.1983. It is also stated that only the lands covered
in Khasra No.315 (to the extent of 3-10) could not be
taken over because of the interim order made by this
Court. The respondents also contend that the possession
of lands which were taken over was made over to the
DDA for development.
As far as compensation is concerned, the position of
the GNCTD is that for two Khasras, i.e., Khasra
Nos.331 and 341, the payments were made to the
petitioner. It is submitted that with respect to Khasra
No.315 (to the extent of 3-10 bighas), the amounts were
remitted to the Court of the ADJ under Section 30/31.
As far as Khasra nos.343 and 344 are concerned, it is
stated that the lands belonged to the custodian;
consequently, there was no question of depositing
compensation.
It is evident from an overall reading of the materials
on record that as to the nature of possession, and
payment of compensation, the petitioners are clearly
entitled to reliefs in respect of Khasra no.315 (to the
extent of 3-10 bighas) as well as Khasra nos.343 & 344.
Though, the respondents have stated and averred in the
pleadings that Khasra Nos.343 & 344 belong to the
custodian, neither Notification under Section 4 nor the
declaration under Section 6, nor indeed the Award,
disclosed the ownership. On the other hand, this Court
in a previous order in respect of the identical land
Khasra no.343 ( 4-16) to the extent of 1/17th share had
directed release in the following terms in Rajan
Shanna & Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi &
Ors., (W.P.(C) 8416/2014, decided on 07.04.2015):-
“1. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 10 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the 2013 Act’) which came into effect on
01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect
that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the 1894 Act’) in respect of which Award No.
63/1982-83 dated 31.01.1983 was made, inter alia,
in respect of the petitioners’ land comprised in
Khasra Nos. 337 (4-16), 340 (4-16) and 343 (4-16)
measuring 14 bighas and 8 biswas (1/17th Share)
in all in village Pul Pahladpur shall be deemed to
have lapsed.
XXX XXX XXX
4. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a
declaration that the said acquisition proceedings
initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the
subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so
declared.
5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid
extent. There shall be no order as to costs.”
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr V. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and
the other judgments that have followed it, i.e.,
(1) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:
(2014) 6 SCC 564;
(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v.
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors:_ Civil Appeal
No.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;
(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:
WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this
Court; and
(4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and
Ors: WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by
this Court.
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 11 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
are clear in that the declaration in the acquisition
proceedings so far as they pertain to Khasra no.315 (3
Bigha 10 Biswas) and 343 & 344 are deemed to have
elapsed. So far as the question of inability of the State
to take over possession on account of pendency of
proceedings and stay orders is concerned, the law as it
exists is clear and has been enunciated in the judgment
cited by the petitioners. In the event of any change,
doubtlessly, the respondents would be entitled to the
relief in accordance with law. “”
15. In terms of the above order, it can be seen that the Coordinate Bench
had followed the decision in W.P.(C) 8416/2014 titled Rajan Sharma & Ors.
v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., wherein vide order dated 7th April,
2015, in respect of other lands of Village Pul Pahladpur, the lands had been
released, since the acquisition proceedings initiated were deemed to have
lapsed.
16. The order dated 11th April, 2017 was challenged by the Government of
NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘DDA’) in
SLP (C) Diary No.3245/2022 titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Shakruddin &
Ors. along with SLP (C) Diary No.32513/2021 and SLP (C) Diary No.
.30218/2021. Vide order dated 29th September, 2022, the Supreme Court
directed as under:
“Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order dated 11-04-2017 passed
by the High court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition
(Civil) Nos. 8912/2014 and 573/2015, by which the
High Court has allowed the said writ petitions preferredW.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 12 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
by the respective respondents/original writ petitioners
and has declared that with respect to the land in
question, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under
section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair compensation and
Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, the Government of NCT of Delhi
and the Delhi Development Authority have preferred the
present appeals.
It is not in dispute and even from the impugned
common judgement and order passed by the High Court,
it is apparent that while disposing of the respective Writ
Petitions, the High court has heavily relied upon the
decision of this court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
& Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and further decisions
following the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
corporation (supra).
However, it is required to be noted and it is not in
dispute that the decision of this Court in the case of
Pune Municipal corporation (supra) has been over-
ruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority vs.
Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
There are serious disputes with respect to possession
taken over as well as the compensation. From the
material on record, it appears that the litigation was
pending and there was an order of status quo with
respect to some portion of the acquired land. All these
factual aspects are required to be considered by the
High Court on the basis of material on record and/or
the material that may be produced on record.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the
High Court to be quashed and set aside and the matters
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 13 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
to be remanded to the High court to decide the same
afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits
and considering the observations made by this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra)
and/or any other decision (s) which may be placed
before the High court because there is subsequent
decision on the order of Status quo.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated
hereinabove, the impugned common judgement and
order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and
set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court
to decide and dispose of the Writ Petitions afresh in
accordance with law and on its own merits and in light
of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this court
in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra).
It will be open for the respective parties to file additional
material on record on the possession and/or the
compensation and/or even the order of status quo
and/or pending litigation, which may be considered by
the High Court in accordance with law and on its own
merits.
The present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid
extent and stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.”
17. In terms of the above order, the Supreme Court observed that the
judgement in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) had been set aside by the
decision of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar
Lal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In addition, it was also held that the order
dated 11th April, 2017, passed by this Court, is quashed and set aside.
Thereafter, the matter was remanded to this Court for fresh adjudication.
18. Insofar as SLP(C) Diary No. 28141/2021 titled ‘DDA v. Mohd.
Maqbool and Ors. is concerned, which arose out of the W.P.(C) 7716/2014
that had challenged the land acquisition under the same award, the same was
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 14 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
tagged with the batch of matters titled SLP(C) 26687/2019 titled ‘Delhi
Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.’
19. The Supreme Court rendered the judgement in DDA v. Tejpal (Supra)
on 17th May, 2024. In the said judgement, SLP(C) Diary No. 28141/2021
titled ‘DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool and Ors. was listed as part of List E2, at Serial
No.109, in respect of which the land acquisition was upheld. The relevant
table in the said decision is set out below:
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 15 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 16 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 17 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 18 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
20. Thus, in respect of writ petitions being W.P.(C) 573/2015 titled ‘Jan
Mohammad v. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.‘ and W.P.(C) 8912/2014 titled
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 19 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
‘Shakruddin and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.‘ the matter was
remanded by the Supreme Court vide order dated 29th September, 2022.
21. However, in respect of W.P.(C) 7716/2014 titled ‘Mohd. Maqbool and
Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi‘ the land acquisition proceeding was upheld and
the Supreme Court vide order dated 17th May, 2024, in DDA v. Tejpal
(Supra) passed the direction to the effect that the possession of the land would
be taken. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“80. Having condoned the delay and upon grant of leave
and after perusing the material on record, we find that
the cases which form part of the appended “List E.2”
are squarely covered in favour of the appellants in terms
of Manoharlal. While it may not be feasible to give
detailed analysis of each of these cases, suffice it would
be to show the same illustratively. For instance, in SLP
(C ) Diary No. 19172 of 2019, titled “DDA v. Vijay
Mohan“, while the possession was admittedly not taken,
compensation was paid on 9-8-2005. Accordingly, the
test laid down in Manoharlal has been met and the
acquisition proceedings cannot be deemed to have
lapsed under the 2013 Act.
81. All such civil appeals are accordingly allowed, the
impugned judgment of the High Court in each case is
set aside, and the acquisition of the respondents’ lands
under the 1894 Act is consequently upheld. This will,
however, not preclude the respondents from recovery of
the compensation amount, if not already paid or to the
extent it is not paid, along with interest and other
statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. Similarly, they
shall be at liberty to seek reference under Section 18 of
the 1894 Act in accordance with law. The Government
of NCT of Delhi and its authorities are directed to take
physical possession of the lands falling under this
category (i.e. “List E.2″), if not already taken and
continue uninterruptedly to complete the public
infrastructure projects.”
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 20 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
22. In the interregnum, another fact deserves to be noted. Proceedings in a
reference petition under Section 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 were initiated
before the ld. District Judge being LAC No. 51/2016 titled Union of India v.
Gaon Sabha Pul Pehladpur. Vide order dated 22nd December, 2018, ld.
District Judge came to the conclusion that all the legal heirs of late Sh. Bunda
were illegal occupants of the land and late Sh.Bunda was also an illegal
occupant. The relevant portion of the order dated 22nd December, 2018 is set
out below:
“29. Though, as per Khasra Girdawari for the year
1965-66 Ex.IP4AW1/4, the contesting IPs were in
unauthorized/illegal occupation of the acquired land
after vesting of the same in Gaon Sabha Mehrauli,
these IPs however were not evicted from the said land
by Gaon Sabha. Assuming the best in favour of IP No.1
Gaon Sabha i.e. that IP No.4 & 5 were not cultivating
the acquired land since part of the same was
uncultivable, Khasra Girdawari for the year 1965-66
establishes the possession of IP No.4 & 5 over Khasra
No.315 though illegal. However, it is important to
again note that despite being illegal occupants, IP
No.4 & 5 were not evicted by Goan Sabha which seem
to be the reason for their possession in Khasra No.315
as depicted in Khasra Girdawari.
30. IP No.21 i.e. Hamdard Dawakhana in its claim
submitted that it had purchased the land in question vide
different sale deeds. However, no evidence has been led
to prove these sale deeds. No other IP has led any
evidence to prove his entitlement over any other Khasra
numbers which are the subject matter of this reference.
31. As already highlighted, evidence was led by only 3
IPs i.e. IP No.1, legal heirs of IP No.4 and legal heirs of
IP No.5. Legal heirs of IP No.4 & 5 led their evidenceW.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 21 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
in support of their claim over Khasra No.315 only and
did not raise any claim over the other Khasra Numbers
in their examination-in-chief. As per the revenue record
relied upon on behalf of IP No.4 and IP No.5, in Khasra
Girdwari for the year 1965-66, a small part of the land
in Khasra No.315 was shown to be cultivable whereas
the remaining land was mentioned to be Gair Mumkin.
No document has been filed by legal heirs of IP No.4
or IP No.5 on record to show their ownership over the
said acquired land. Witness on behalf of legal heirs of
IP No.4 only claimed that they were cultivating a part
of Khasra No.315 i.e. 3 bigha 10 biswa which was in
their possession whereas witness on behalf of the legal
heirs of IP No.5 deposed that they were carrying out
mining in 145 bighas of land and, were cultivating the
rest. There is no proof that legal heirs of IP No.5 ever
carried out mining on Khasra No.315. It is patent that
deposition of witness on behalf of IP No.5 was tailored
to meet the entries i.e. Ex.IP4AW1/ 4 wherein it has
been mentioned that out of 155 bigha of Khasra
No.315, 145 bigha was being used for mining.
32. IP No.1 Gaon Sabha on the other hand claimed
compensation qua all the 6 khasra numbers i.e. 310,
311, 312, 313, 314, 315 & 318. The evidence led by IP
No.1 and also by legal heirs of IP No.4 & 5 i.e.
Khatauni and Khasra Girdawari clearly show Gaon
Sabha to be the tenure holder while Fateh Mohd and
others S/o Bunda as illegal occupants
33. In the peculiar facts of the case at hand, since only
possession of IP No.4 & 5 stands established on a part
of Khasra No.315 but which also is illegal as per
revenue record, in the understanding of the Court, IP
No.4 & 5 are held entitled to a share in the
compensation by assuming that since they have never
been evicted by IP No.1 Gaon Sabha, they must have
been engaged in some economically gainful activity onW.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 22 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
the acquired land. Consequently, they are held entitled
to receive 20% of the compensation amount for the
cultivable part of Khasra No.315 i.e. 10 bigha 5 biswa
which is to be shared equally by the legal heirs of IP
no.4 and legal heirs of IP No.5. As a corollary, IP No.1
is held entitled to 80% of the compensation awarded by
the LAC in respect of cultivable area of Khasra No.315
i.e. 10 Bigha 5 Biswa, entire compensation for the
uncultivable area i.e. 145 Bigha 13 Biswa of Khasra
No.315 and whole of the compensation in respect of the
other Khasra Numbers.”
The above order clearly holds that they were in unauthorised occupation and
only due to the fact that they were not evicted, the name of Bunda Singh was
reflected in the revenue records.
23. The aforesaid order dated 22nd December, 2018 was challenged by
some of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Bunda in LA. APP. 26/2019 titled ‘Sh.
Babu (since deceased) Thr Lrs v. Union of India and Ors.‘. In the said
appeal, vide order dated 27th February, 2019, this Court had granted an
interim order only in respect of the compensation. The said order reads as
under:
“Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is present on
advance notice.
Initial submissions have been made on behalf of the
petitioner.
Notice of the appeal ·and of the accompanying
applications CM.APPL.No.9604/2019 & CM.APPL.
No.9606/2019 is accepted on behalf of the respondent
no.1 and notice thereof be issued to the respondent nos.
2, 5 & 6 stated to be the only IPs granted relief vide the
impugned judgment dated 22.12.2018 by the learned
ADJ -02, South in LAC No.51/16 on taking of steps byW.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 23 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
the petitioner through all permissible modes, process
returnable for 14.05.2019.
Response, if any, of the respondent no.1 be filed
before the next date of hearing.
Till the next date hearing, the release of the payment
awarded in terms of the impugned judgment dated
22.12.2018 is stayed.”
24. The aforesaid appeal is stated to be pending before the ld. Single Judge
of this Court.
Submissions
25. Ms. Neha Kapoor, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has made
the following submissions:
(i) Ld. Counsel submits that the DDA had a duty to disclose before the
Supreme Court in DDA v. Tejpal (Supra) that the Supreme Court had
remanded the matter in connected petitions i.e., W.P.(C) 573/2015
titled ‘Jan Mohammad v. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.‘ and W.P.(C)
8912/2014 titled ‘Shakruddin and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.
vide order 29th September, 2022. Thus, it is submitted that DDA has
committed perjury by not disclosing the true facts.
(ii) She also submits that pursuant to the remand order of the Supreme
Court, dated 29th September, 2022, this Court would have to examine
each case on its own merits. Further, since possession of some portion
of land admeasuring Khasra Nos. 315 had not been taken and neither
the compensation had been paid, the land acquisition should be held to
have been lapsed.
(iii) Reliance is also placed upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 24 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
Civil Appeal No.8526/2016 titled ‘DDA v. Rajan Sharma‘, which was
tagged with a case titled ‘DDA v. Veena Mahajan‘ bearing Diary
No.10069/2021’, wherein the Supreme Court, vide order dated 11th
December, 2024 had passed a direction that within one year from the
date of the order, the authorities shall complete acquisition
proceedings.
(iv) According to her, since the order dated 11th April, 2017 had followed
the decision in Rajan Sharma (supra), the order dated 11th December,
2024 of the Supreme Court ought to enure to the benefit of the
Petitioners in respect of Khasra No.343.
26. On the other hand, Ms. Manika Tripathy, ld. Standing Counsel
appearing for the DDA and ld. Counsel appearing for LAC submits that in
SLP(C) Diary No. 28141/2021 titled ‘DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool and Ors.‘, the
Award which is under challenge in these petitions, has been upheld fully and
the land acquisition has also been upheld. Therefore, no relief is liable to be
granted in these petitions.
27. Additionally, it is also submitted that by order dated 22nd December,
2018 passed by the ld. District Judge, legal heirs of late Shri Bunda have been
held to be illegal occupants, consequently, the Petitioners would have no locus
to challenge the impugned award.
28. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that the decision in DDA
v. Tejpal (Supra) would not apply to the Petitioners. It would only apply, if
any, in case of the share of Mohd. Maqbool. It is also submitted that the
clarification which has been sought in W.P.(C) 12543/2024 deserves to be
granted.
29. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.4 in W.P(C) 6194/2024 submits that
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 25 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
an affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest (South),
Department of Forest and Wildlife, stating that certain land forming part of
Khasra No.315 has been notified as a ridge reserve forest vide two
Notifications dated 24th May, 1994 and 2nd April, 1996.
30. In fact, it is the stand of the Deputy Conservator of Forests (South),
Department of Forest and Wildlife that the Petitioners have encroached upon
a forest land. Relevant portion of the said affidavit is extracted below:
“8. That it is pertinent to mention here that the total
area of Khasra no. 315 is 155 bigha 18 biswa out of
which 155 bigha 13 biswa of Village Pul Pehladpur,
New Delhi was declared as “Reserve Forest Area”
pursuant to Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927
vide notification no. F 10(12)-1/PA/DCF/93/2012-
17(1) dated 24.05.1994. Further that the area 03 bigha
5 biswa of khasra in question was also notified as
Ridge Reserve Forest vide notification dated
02.04.1996. The copy of the notification No.F10(12)-
1/PA/DCF/93/2012-17(1) dated 24.05.1994 and
notification No. F 1(29)- 1/PA/DC/95/dated 02.04.1996
is annexed herewith as Annexure – A (Colly)
9. That pursuant to Sections 5 and 9 of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927, no right accrues in favour of any
person with regard to any Reserved Forest, unless the
said right is claimed before the Forest Settlement
Officer, and all other rights are extinguished. That the
Petitioner has not established any such rights before the
Forest Settlement Officer for the land in question and
therefore, cannot claim the same for any area within a
reserved forest.
10. That it is submitted that the Petitioners have acted
dishonestly, fraudulently and out of avarice from the
very beginning. It is submitted that the Petitioners have
encroached the khasra in question which is a proposed
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 26 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
forest land and the petitioners are trying to usurp the
part of government land which was duly placed in the
hands of answering respondent. Copy of the map
showing the encroachment is annexed herewith as
Annexure-B.”
31. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that if the Notifications dated
24th May, 1994 and 2nd April, 1996, declaring the land as forest land is relied
upon, the DDA did not have any locus to challenge the order passed by this
Court dated 11th April, 2017 before the Supreme Court. This submission is
refuted by ld. Counsel for the DDA.
32. Further, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that Notifications
dated 24th May, 1994 and 2nd April, 1996 declaring the land as forest land
were never brought to the notice of the Supreme Court.
33. Ld. Counsel for the DDA submits that the DDA was, in fact, the main
beneficiary of the acquisition and SDM had transferred the land to the forest
department.
Analysis and Findings
34. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the
records. The impugned Award in the present three petitions is the same as in
the case of DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool and Ors. (supra).
35. The Petitioners cannot claim to have separate rights, inasmuch as
Mohd. Maqbool and the Petitioners are similarly placed, being legal heirs of
Late Sh. Bunda. The manner in which the Petitioners herein seek to
distinguish themselves from Mohd. Maqbool would not be tenable.
36. Even if the cases are taken to be one of remand, on facts, the Court has
perused the order dated 22nd December, 2018 passed by the District Judge,
which has been extracted above. The said order is clear to the effect that late
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 27 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
Sh. Bunda was himself an illegal occupant of the land.
37. The locus of the Petitioners has been defended by ld. Counsel for the
Petitioners on the basis of the fact that when order dated 11th April, 2017,
was passed, no issue relating to the Petitioners’ locus was raised, either by the
DDA or the LAC. However, this would not be the correct position, inasmuch
as those three writ petitions i.e., W.P.(C) 7716/2014, W.P.(C) 8912/2014,
W.P.(C) 573/2015 were disposed of on the basis of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and at that stage,
there was no occasion to go into the interest of the Petitioners in the land itself.
38. Thus, the order dated 11th April, 2017, cannot operate as res judicata
in respect of the persons who do not have interest in the land and are illegal
occupants.
39. Additionally, the findings of the District Judge vide order dated 22nd
December, 2018 are absolutely clear. According to the Petitioners, the said
order was filed before the Supreme Court with the counter affidavit, when
the order dated 29th September, 2022 was passed – however, the same does
not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Supreme Court at the time
of remand.
40. Even if it is taken as its best, the order dated 22nd December, 2018
would be required to be considered post the order dated 29th September, 2022
passed by the Supreme Court, where the directions are clear to the effect that
individual cases would have to be considered afresh. Taking this position into
consideration, the findings of the District Judge that the Petitioners are illegal
occupants of the land and the predecessor in interest late. Sh. Bunda was also
an illegal occupant, goes to the root of the matter.
41. So long as the finding in the pending LA. APP. 26/2019 is not
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 28 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
disturbed, in the opinion of this Court, the present writ petitions would not be
maintainable.
42. Moreover, the possession of land, insofar as Khasra Nos.343 and 344
has already been taken, which is also recorded above. The ld. Counsel for the
Petitioners claims that her right would be restricted to 3 bighas 10 biswas of
Khasra No.315, where the Petitioners are in possession. If the Petitioners are
in possession and are persons interested, at best, they may have a right to seek
a share in the compensation in proceedings before the LAC.
43. The acquisition of land cannot be held to have lapsed as the same has
been upheld by the Supreme Court vide the judgement dated 17th May, 2024
in DDA v. Mohd. Maqbool and Ors. (supra) and most of the land possession
has already been taken over by the Government. Additionally, a substantial
amount of compensation also stands deposited. Thus, the prayer for holding
that the acquisition has lapsed is not tenable.
44. Accordingly, the Petitioners are relegated to avail of their remedies in
respect of compensation in accordance with law.
45. The present petitions are disposed of in these terms. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 12, 2026/dk/sm
W.P.(C) 6159/2024, 12543/2024 & 6194/2024 Page 29 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
15:22:45
