Rajender Sharma vs Union Of India Through Land Acquisition Collector (Lac)

$~110
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Date of decision: 23 April, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 29 April, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 4841/2026
RAJENDER SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Sharma with Ms.
Mrinalini Khatri and Mr. Madhukant
Jha Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION
COLLECTOR (LAC) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak standing
Counsel with Mr. Kamlesh Kumar
LAC/ADM/North -East with Mr.
Ganga Bishan NT/North -East, Mr.
Himanshu Srivastava SO Central -
North, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.
Mohd Sueb Akhtar 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 seeking, inter alia, directions to the
concerned Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter “ LAC ”) to refer the
applications filed by the Petitioner for enhancement of compensation to the
concerned Reference Court.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner’s land bearing
Khasra No. 1/422 was acquired and a notice under Section 4 of Land
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 1 of 9

Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 12th April, 2006, followed by a
Declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 22nd May,
2006. Thereafter, the Award bearing no. 2/2007-08 (North-East) was passed
on 31st December, 2007. The Petitioner had filed objections under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the compensation amount on 28th
February, 2008.
4. While the reference which was made to the ld. ADJ remained pending,
the market value of the land was enhanced to Rs. 21,920/- per sq. mtr. in a
similar matter and in respect thereof the certified copy of the Award was also
prepared. The Petitioner then moved an application under Section 28A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of his compensation which was
to be considered by the LAC. However, the reference petition qua the
th
Petitioner was dismissed on 29 March, 2016.
5. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said dismissal filed a writ petition
being W.P.(C) 4286/2016 titled Rajender Sharma v. Union of India & Anr.
Parallelly, the Reference Court had again enhanced the compensation amount
in another judgment to Rs.48,000/-. In the said writ petition considered by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Court passed an order dated 20th May,
2019 wherein it was directed as under:
“4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29th March,
2016 passed by the LAA, Shahdara is hereby set aside.
A direction is issued to the LAC, Shahdara to refer the
Petitioner’s application under Section 28-A of the LAA
to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge,
Shahdara for determining whether the Petitioner is
entitled to the enhanced compensation in terms of
Section 28-A of the LAA. The needful be done within a
period of six weeks from today.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 2 of 9

6. As can be seen from the above, six weeks’ time was given for disposal
of the Petitioner’s application filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The Petitioner had to again approach the LAC by way of fresh
applications. However, no action was taken by the LAC. This led to filing of
a further writ petition being W.P.(C) 12187/2024 titled Rajender Sharma v.
Union of India Through Land Acquisition Collector which was disposed of
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 30th September, 2024. The said
order reads as under:
“1. We had on 23 September 2024, after hearing
counsels for respective sides, passed the following
order:
“1. The petitioner has filed the present
petition, inter-alia, praying that his
application under Section IS and 28 A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter the LA
Act) be considered by the LAC.
2. On 02.09.2024, Mr. Pathak, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent had
taken time to take instructions in regard to the
petitioner's prayer. He, now, submits that at
the first instance, it would be necessary for
LAC to decide the petitioner's application.
3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had, by
an order dated 15.12.2021 issued the
directions to the LAC to itself examine the
petitioner's application under Section 28 A of
the LA Act. The relevant extract of the said
order reads as under:
“We have heard learned counsels on
both the applications. It is clarified that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 3 of 9

by the impugned order dated
29.03.2016, the application of the
petitioner under Section 28 A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been
'filed' by him. The direction issued to
the LAC Shahdara is modified to read
that he shall himself examine the
application of the petitioner under
Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition
Act in the first instance.” 4. In view of
the aforesaid, Mr. Pathak, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent,
again seeks time to take instructions in
this regard. 5. List on 24.09.2024.”
2. The solitary grievance of the writ petitioner is with
respect to the non-consideration and disposal of its
application under Sections 18 and 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states
that subject to verification of all facts and contentions
on merits being open, the said application shall be duly
examined and an appropriate order disposing of the
same passed in accordance with law. He further
submits that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed
with due expedition and preferably within a period of
eight weeks from today . The statement so made is
recorded and accepted.”
4. The writ petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.”
In the above order, the Court recorded the statement of the ld. Counsel for the
LAC that the application seeking reference shall be disposed of within eight
weeks.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 4 of 9

7. In respect of this order the Petitioner is running from pillar to post to
have the same given effect to and implemented by the LAC. On the last date
i.e., 13th April, 2026, the Court had considered the matter and it was observed
that the conduct of the concerned officer at the office of LAC being one Mr.
Himanshu Srivastava, was completely unbecoming of an office holding a
public office. This had led the Petitioner to undergo a gruelling process before
the LAC and file writ petitions to seek some relief. Accordingly, the Court
had held that strict action would be liable to be taken and had directed the said
officer to be present before the Court and also file a personal affidavit
explaining his conduct by the next date. The relevant portion of the Court's
observations are as under:
“10. As can be seen from the above order, on behalf
of the LAC, the Court had recorded the statement
that the Petitioner’s applications filed under
Sections 18 and 28A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 would be disposed of expeditiously within a
period of 8 weeks. Unfortunately, however, till date,
the Petitioner has had to undergo a gruelling
process before the LAC wherein notices dated 13th
March, 2025, 2nd July, 2025, 2nd September, 2025
and 17th October, 2025 have been issued for
hearing and on each date the matter has been
adjourned again and again. Though the Petitioner
has repeatedly visited the LAC’s office, the order
dated 30th September, 2024 has not been given
effect to.
11. The Petitioner himself is present in Court today
and he submits that the official of the LAC has
been extremely disrespectful and has repeatedly
made the Petitioner visit the LAC’s office. He has
named the officer in charge – Mr. Himanshu
Srivastava who is alleged to have told the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 5 of 9

Petitioner to go and obtain the orders from the
High Court in his case .
12. Clearly, this kind of conduct cannot be
condoned by this Court. Repeated orders have been
passed in favour of the Petitioner. Firstly, in 2019
and again in 2024 directing a time-bound disposal.
However, it appears that the LAC is not in a mood
to comply with the same.
13. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner had in fact prepared a contempt petition
and made advance service of the same to the LAC.
At which stage, the LAC started issuing notices and
had expressed an intention to comply with the
orders. However, no action has been taken till date.
14. This Court is of the opinion that strict action
would be liable to be taken against the LAC in this
matter.
15. Accordingly, let Mr. Himanshu Srivastava be
personally present in Court on the next date of
hearing. He shall also file a personal affidavit
explaining his conduct by the next date of hearing .
16. Mr. Pathak, ld. Standing Counsel for the LAC at
this stage submits that Mr. Srivastava may not be
the in-charge of the Petitioner’s case.
17. It is made clear that issue is not about any
specific official but about compliance with court
orders. Firstly, Mr. Srivastava has a duty to
explain to this Court as to his conduct. Secondly,
whoever is the official in-charge of the Petitioner’s
case from the office of the LAC shall also remain
physically present on the next date of hearing. ”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 6 of 9

8. Today, Mr. Srivastava is physically present in Court.
9. Mr. Pathak, ld. counsel for the Respondent submits that the order which
th
was to be passed within 8 weeks, as directed by the order dated 30
September, 2024 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)
12187/2024 , has still not been passed.
10. Both the applications under Section 18 and Section 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter “ the Act ”) continue to remain pending with
the LAC for all these years.
11. The Petitioner had filed two writ petitions, one being W.P.(C)
4286/2016 , wherein directions were given vide order dated 20th May, 2019
to the LAC, Shahdara to refer the application under Section 28A of the Act to
the Court of Additional District Judge, Shahdara, however, the same has not
been done till date even after about 7 years.
12. Again, in W.P.(C) 12187/2024 , further directions were given vide order
dated 30th September, 2024. It is submitted by Mr. Pathak, ld. Counsel for
LAC that even this order has not been complied with till date.
13. On behalf of Mr. Srivastava, Mr. Pathak, ld. Counsel submits that there
was some appeal which was pending, and it still remains pending, due to
which the orders of this Court could not be complied with.
14. This is a completely unacceptable explanation. If there is any appeal
pending, it is for the concerned District Judge to take the same into account
and not for the LAC to continue to defy the orders of this Court.
15. The concerned LAC has issued multiple notices for hearing but still it
has failed to pass the orders as directed by this Court.
16. As of today, the matter is stated to have been now transferred to the
North-East district of LAC. However, at the relevant point in time Mr.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 7 of 9

Srivastava was working in the office of the concerned jurisdictional LAC. It
is under these circumstances that Mr. Srivastava was directed to be personally
present today.
17. On the last date i.e., 13th April, 2026 an opportunity was also given to
him to file a personal affidavit explaining his conduct, which has not been
availed of and no affidavit has been placed on record. Mr. Pathak, ld. Counsel
submits that the affidavit is ready, however, he seeks further time to file the
same. In view of the above, the request for further time is a completely
unreasonable request.
18. In the opinion of this Court, the acquisition in this case took place way
back in 2007 and till date even the reference for enhancement of compensation
has not been made to the concerned ld. ADJ. Almost 20 years have passed
now without any compensation having been paid to the Petitioner.
19. After having seen the entire record, this Court is of the view that the
manner in which the Court orders have completely been defied by the LAC
and its officers is not condonable. Accordingly, the following directions are
issued:
i. The concerned LAC shall pass the order in terms of the previous
orders dated 20th May, 2019 and 30th September, 2024 passed
by this Court in the earlier writ petitions mentioned above.
th
ii. The said order shall also be now passed by 20 May, 2026.
iii. For the conduct of Mr. Srivastava for repeatedly calling the
Petitioner and the LAC not passing any orders despite express
directions from this Court, costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- are imposed.
The same are liable to be paid in the following manner:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 8 of 9

(a) Rs. 50,000/- shall be borne personally by Mr. Srivastava to
be paid to the Petitioner within 2 weeks.
(b) The LAC office shall pay a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- to
the Petitioner within 2 weeks.
20. In order to enable the passing of the order in terms of today’s direction,
the Petitioner may appear before the concerned LAC whose name and address
shall be communicated today itself to the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner by Mr.
Pathak. ld. Counsel for LAC.
21. After hearing the Petitioner, appropriate orders in both the applications
under Section 18 and Section 28A of the Act shall be passed by the LAC.
22. The petition is disposed of along with pending application, if any,
th
23. List for reporting compliance on 10 July, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2026/ vs / prg/msh
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:35:35
W.P.(C) 4841/2026 Page 9 of 9