Delhi High Court - Orders
Arshad Khan vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 February, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1513/2026 & CM APPL. 7404/2026, CM APPL. 7405/2026
ARSHAD KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Apratim Animesh Thakur, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with
Ms. K. K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil
Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar
and Ms. Joohu Kumari, Advs for R2 &
R3.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER
% 03.02.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner praying that the award no. 14/87-88 (hereinafter, 'the impugned award') be declared as invalid and non est in view of the compensation which was deposited in respect of the said amount, having been withdrawn by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter, 'the LAC') on 13th April, 1993. The prayer in this writ petition is as under:
"(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby formally declaring that the Award No. 14/87-88, pertaining to Village Satbari, New Delhi has invalidated and is non est in view of the fact that the compensation under the said Award has been withdrawn by the Respondent No. 2 vide Voucher No. 1370 dated 13.04.1993;W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 1 of 14
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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11
(ii) issue a writ order or direction thereby formally declaring Award No. 14/87-88 pertaining to Village Satbari, New Delhi being an offer from the Authorities, stands withdrawn by the Respondents with effect from 13.04.1993;
(iii) issue a writ order or direction thereby formally declaring that the Award No. 14/87-88, pertaining to Village Satbari, New Delhi is rendered null and void on account of procedure lapses and deliberate misconduct by the Respondents;
(iv) issue a writ order or direction thereby formally declaring that the Award No. 14/87-88, pertaining to Village Satbari, New Delhi is rendered unenforceable on account of being violative of the Constitutional rights and guarantees of the land owners of Village Satbari, New Delhi;
(v) issue a writ order or direction thereby that all the consequential proceedings under the impugned Award No. 14/87-88 pertaining to Village Satbari, New Delhi are ultra virus;
(vi) to the respondents thereby quashing and setting aside the Award No.14/87-88, Village Satbari, New Delhi; AND
(vii) Pass such other and further order (s) which your lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case."
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he has been a co-owner and is in continuous physical possession of land admeasuring 9 Bighas and 9 Biswas, comprised in Khasra Nos.921/1(2-5), 921/2(1-17), 922 Min. (0-5), 1059 (4-
14) and 944 Min.(0-8) (hereinafter, 'the subject land'), situated in the revenue estate of village Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.
4. The claim of the Petitioner of co-ownership of the subject land is on the W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 2 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11 basis of a Khatauni, which contains the following description:
5. An initial notification no.F.9(16)/80-L&B under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 25th November, 1980 for acquisition of the land falling in village Satbari, New Delhi for a public purpose, namely for the planned development of Delhi.
6. Thereafter, notification No.F.9(16)/85-L&B u/s 6 of the Land W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 3 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11 Acquisition Act, 1894 was also issued on 20th May, 1985. The impugned award was then passed on 26th May, 1987, bearing No. 14/87-88.
7. According to the Petitioner, an RTI application was filed on 27th February, 2018, in respect of the amount of Rs. 11,71,18,574.47, which was deposited by the LAC with the Government Treasury. The said amount was, however, withdrawn on 13th April, 1993, by an order of the competent authority i.e., the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, and was transferred to village Kakrola vide voucher No.1370, dated 13th April, 1993 to pay compensation for an award passed for village Kakrola vide Award No.1/93-94.
8. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is stated that the Petitioner, being the co- owner of the subject land, and the deposited amount having been withdrawn, it is the case of Mr. Thakur, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the impugned award itself has been invalidated and it is therefore non est.
9. It is further submitted that recently, a writ petition has been filed in respect of the same subject land being W.P.(C) 316/2026 titled Nasir & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which is under consideration by this Court. The Respondents are now stated to be trying to take over possession of the land.
10. Ld. Counsels appearing for the LAC have firstly challenged the ownership claim of the Petitioner on the subject land. It is submitted that apart from the Khatauni, nothing else has been filed to show that the Petitioner has any right in the subject land in question.
11. In addition, it is also pointed out that in respect of this very land, one Mr. Nur Mohammad had filed W.P.(C) 1107/2015, wherein vide order dated 25th May, 2015, this Court had held the acquisition proceedings as having lapsed. The relevant portion of the order dated 25th May, 2015 is set out below:
W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 4 of 14This 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11 "2. The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 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 proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No.14/1987- 88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.921/1 (2-5), 921/2 (1-17), 922 min (0-5), 1059 (4-14), 944 min (0-8), measuring 9 bighas and 9 biswas in all, in village Satbari, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioner, who claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.
4. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same has not been paid to the petitioner but, according to the respondents, the same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, they seek to invoke the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which was introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance").
5. So far as the applicability of the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon by the respondents inasmuch as the Ordinance of 2014 has been held to be prospective in nature and does not take away W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 5 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11 vested rights. This has so been held by the Supreme Court in in recent decision in M/s Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-
"The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the abovesaid sub-section without giving retrospective effect to the same."
6. The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Karnail Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013 decided on 22.01.2015.
7. From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance is prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioner as on 01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013 Act are undisturbed by the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by the said Ordinance. The same would apply in respect of the said Ordinance of 2015.
8. Without going into the controversy with regard to the physical possession, this much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid to the petitioner, but has only been deposited in the treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
9. All the necessary ingredients for the application W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 6 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11 of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:-
(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.
10. As a result, the petitioner is 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.
11. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs."
12. This order of the High Court was challenged by the Government of NCT of Delhi before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 1809/2023 titled Govt. of NCT Delhi v. Noor Mohammed,. In the said Civil Appeal 1809/2023, vide judgment dated 20th March, 2023, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had followed the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and had allowed the writ petition.
13. The said decision in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has, however, been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9036- W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 7 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11
-9038 of 2016. In view thereof, the judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 1809/2023, vide order dated 20th March, 2023.
14. In rejoinder, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in so far as ownership of the subject land is concerned, the Petitioner is the son of one Sakruddin, whose name appears in the Khatauni as Sakru-Jafru.
15. It is further his submission that since the amount deposited by the LAC was withdrawn on 13th April, 1993, vide an order of the competent authority, it is not their argument that the acquisition has lapsed, but since the said amount has been withdrawn, the impugned award itself is invalidated.
16. This Court has considered the matter.
17. Vide judgment of the Coordinate Bench dated 25th May, 2015 in W.P.(C) 1107/2015, as extracted above, the acquisition of the subject land had been held to have lapsed.
18. This order of the Coordinate Bench was set aside by the Supreme Court on 20th March, 2023 in Civil Appeal 1809/2023 and the acquisition has now attained finality. The order of the Supreme Court reads:
"1. Though served, none has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent No.1-original writ petitioner.
2. Delay condoned
3. Leave granted.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1107 of 2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 8 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11 Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act"), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that though it was the case on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the physical possession of the land in question was taken over on 14.07.1987, thereafter, relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ Petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
6. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. In Paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as under:
"365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, the aspect with respect to the proviso to whether 'or' has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and' was to W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 9 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11 Section 24(2) and not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
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. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 10 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11 on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 11 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11 under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.
7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and considering the fact that the possession of the land in question was already taken over as far back as on 14.07.1987, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as observed and held by the High Court.
8. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapse of W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 12 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11 acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act with respect to the land in question as held by the High Court.
The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs."
Thus, the issue relating to acquisition of the subject land cannot be reopened anymore.
19. Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also submitted that before the Supreme Court, when the above said order dated 20th March, 2023 was passed, the fact that the deposited amounts were withdrawn by the LAC was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court.
20. In the opinion of this Court, this argument is not tenable, in as much as if the withdrawal of the deposited amounts was way back in 1993 and the acquisition has been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023, this issue cannot be reopened or reconsidered. The acquisition of this very land having been specifically upheld, no contrary view can be taken.
21. In so far as the issue pertaining to payment of compensation is concerned, it appears that the amount had been withdrawn by the LAC, upon the order of the competent authority, as stated by the Petitioner. However, this would not disentitle the land owners from claiming compensation in accordance with law.
22. Hence, in order to claim compensation, the Petitioner, as also any other co-owners who may have valid title, are free to file their claims before the concerned LAC, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. Needless to add the title of the Petitioners shall also be verified as the same has not been considered on merits by this Court.
W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 13 of 14This 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11
23. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J MADHU JAIN, J FEBRUARY 3, 2026 b/ss W.P.(C) 1513/2026 Page 14 of 14 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 05/02/2026 at 20:34:11