Haroon Rasheed & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr.

$~235
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 5 November, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 10 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010539202026
+ W.P.(C) 16554/2026
HAROON RASHEED & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. S. K. Rout, Ms. Dimple Dhamija,
Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Mr. Rahul
Kumar & Ms. Parmita Nath, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Rohilla (SPC), Mr.
Pradeep Kr. Yadav, Mr. Abhishek
Singh, Mr. Aman Singh & Mr.
Pradumann Rohilla, Advs. for R-1.
Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mrs K. K. Kiran Pathak
Mr Sunil Kumar Jha Mr Mohd Sueb
Akhtar Mr Kushagra Dixit Mrs
Musarrat B. Hasmi, Advocates for
LAC.
Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing
Counsel for MCD, Mr. Siddhartha
Goswami, Mr. Aditya Sachdeva and
Ms. Richa Pandey, Advs. for MCD.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking directions to the Land
Acquisition Collector ( hereinafter ‘LAC’ ) to forward the reference petition
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
W.P.(C) 16554/2026 Page 1 of 6

filed by the Petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter, ‘Act, 1894’) to the concerned District Judge for early
adjudication.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that in respect of Award No.12/LAC/N/12-
13 passed by the LAC, the commercial property bearing no. 10103/1, Pul
Bangash, Delhi ad measuring 58.46 sq. mtrs.( hereinafter, ‘the subject
property’) belongs to the Petitioner.
4. The said award was passed for acquiring the land in question for
construction of Grade Separator at Rani Jhansi Road.
5. It is the Petitioner’s case that his mother – Smt. Famida Begum , who
was the owner of the subject property, had filed the reference petition under
th
Section 18 of the Act, 1894 on 12 July, 2012. However, till date, the same
has not been transmitted to the concerned District Judge.
6. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner’s
mother passed away on 7th June, 2015 and thereafter the Petitioner came to
know that this matter has not been processed by the LAC. Hence, this petition.
7. On behalf of the MCD, Mr. Sanjay Vashishth, ld. Counsel, submits that
the present writ petition is wholly barred by delay and laches, as more than
12 years have elapsed since the filing of the reference application. Reliance
in this regard is placed upon Jagdish & Ors. v. Land Acquisition
Collector/ADM, 2005 (83) DRJ 425 (DB) .
8. The Court has considered the matter. In Jagdish & Ors. (supra) , which
was a similar case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had held that when
the petition is barred by delay and latches, it cannot be referred to the District
Judge.
9. The relevant portion of the judgment is set out below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
W.P.(C) 16554/2026 Page 2 of 6

“...5. These averments made in the application, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, apparently seems to
be incorrect. It is contrary to the normal conduct of a
prudent person, that after having filed the application
under Section 18 of the Act, which is undisputedly a very
valuable right of the claimant, he would take no steps to
find out the fate of his application for a period of more
than 12 years. Except the letter dated 17th September,
2004 produced by the petitioner on record no other
letter has a receipt or acknowledgement from the
respondent-Department. The application dated 17th
September, 1992 has no endorsement or stamp of the
Department like in the application dated 17th
September, 2004. This application was not sent by post.
The other reference made in the application is to the
letter dated 11th November, 1998 and even a copy of
this letter has not been produced before the Court in
this writ petition. There is no explanation in this writ
petition as to why the petitioner remained quiet and did
not approach the Court of competent jurisdiction in
this regard for this long period of 12 years. There is
an in-built contradiction in the stand taken by the
petitioner before us. On the one hand, he claims to have
visited the office of the Collector on various occasions
and despite the fact that he got no satisfactory reply, the
petitioner failed to take steps in accordance with law;
while on the other, the petitioner claims to have written
letters which were neither sent by post nor an
acknowledgment taken for delivering such letters
including the petition under section 18 of the Act at the
office of the Collector. We may also notice here, that
admittedly the petitioner was in touch with the counsel
since the year 1998 and what could be the reason for the
petitioner not to approach the Court of competent
jurisdiction, is a question which has been left to the
imagination of anyone. Why no acknowledgment was
taken from the office of the Collector for submission of
the said petition and why it or subsequent letters thereto
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
W.P.(C) 16554/2026 Page 3 of 6

were not sent by Registered post or under postal
certificate is again an unexplained aspect of this case.
The only document for which the petitioner care to
obtain receipt from the Collector is the letter dated 17th
September, 2004 If the petitioner was so vigilant about
his rights that he was visiting the office of the respondent
on various occasions, then it was but natural for the
petitioner or his counsel to take recourse to appropriate
legal remedy without any unnecessary delay.
xxx xxx xxx
14. The maxim 'Delay defeats Equity' as it aids the
vigilant and not the indolent, is also a well-established
norm which applies with equal force to exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court in the
nature of prerogative writs. The relief claimed by the
petitioner being jura in personam suffers from the
defect of delay and latches as well as not doing the
equity which is expected of the petitioner in all
fairness. The petitioner has made an obvious attempt
to mislead the Court and infringe the cardinal
principles of basic rule of law. In the case of Municipal
Council, Ahmednagar and Anr. vs. Shah Hyder Beig
and Ors. (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 48, the
Supreme Court applied the doctrine of 'Delay defeats
latches' to the cases under the Land Acquisition Act and
held that “21 years long delay after issuance of the
notification and 16 years from the date of making over
possession and passing of the award, the relief was
belated” and dismissed the writ petitions. The
principles established in this case are squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case.”
10. The present case is distinguishable from Jagdish & Ors. (supra), in as
much as, in the said case, the application filed under Section 18 of the Act did
not bear any endorsement or acknowledgement of the concerned Department.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
W.P.(C) 16554/2026 Page 4 of 6

In the present case, however, the application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894
prima facie, bears a due acknowledgement of the Department showing receipt
th
on 12 July, 2012.
11. Under these circumstances, the Court is inclined to direct that the LAC
would now send the reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894
to the concerned District Judge within a period of two months from this order.
12. Further, LAC shall confirm the authenticity of the seal and diary
number, etc. which is depicted on the reference petition attached as Annexure
P-1. The same is extracted below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
W.P.(C) 16554/2026 Page 5 of 6

13. Needless to add, if the concerned Reference Court awards
compensation to the Petitioner, the question as to whether the Petitioner
would be entitled to any interest for this period during which the Petitioner
th th
did not approach the Court i.e., period of 14 years from 12 July, 2012 till 5
November, 2026 shall also be liable to be considered by the Reference Court.
14. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications are also
disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DINESH BHATT
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 5, 2026
Rahul/sm
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
W.P.(C) 16554/2026 Page 6 of 6