Mandeep Singh Sehrawat & Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 10 April, 2026
th
Uploaded on:15 April, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 3710/2026 & CM APPL. 18086/2026
MANDEEP SINGH SEHRAWAT & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dharamraj Ohlan, Adv.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC, Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil
Kumar Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar, Ms.
Joohu Kumari, Advs. for R1 & R2.
Mr. Vinay Kaushik, GP for R3.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC for DDA
with Mr. Saksham Singh, Adv. for
DDA.
Mr. Akul Mehandru, Adv.
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 six Petitioners, seeking inter alia
setting aside of the public notice dated 31st July, 2025, as also the public
notice dated 9th February, 2026 and its corrigendum dated 23rd February,
2026. The six Petitioners arrayed in the present petition as under :
1. Sh. Mandeep Singh Sehrawat
S/o Sh Mahender Singh
R/o House No D-21 Aashiana,
Near chaupai road village
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 1 of 18

Mahipalpur, South West Delhi
New delhi-110037
2. Ashok Kumar
S/o late Sh. Rohtash
R/o h.no. 452, village Mahipalpur,
Near chaupal chowk,
New delhi-110037
3. Yogesh Chander
S/o late Shri Sujan
R/o h.no. 452, village Mahipalpur,
Near chaupal chowk,
New delhi-110037
4. Sukhbir singh
S/o late Shri Kanwar Singh
R/o h.no. 452, village Mahipalpur,
Near chaupal chowk,
New delhi-110037
5. Naresh
S/o late Sh. Nawal Singh
R/o house no 452 village Mahipalpur
Near chaupal chowk,
New delhi-110037
6. Manish Sehrawat
S/o late Sh. Ravinder singh,
R/o h.no. 75, khyali ram gali,
Mahipalpur, South West Delhi,
Delhi-110037
3. The said Petitioners have challenged the acquisition in respect of land
comprising Khasra No.924 (4-16), 925 (4-16), 926/1 (4-12), Village
Mahipalpur, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘Acquired Land’).
4. The Notification for acquisition under section 4 of Land Acquisition
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 2 of 18

Act, 1894 ( hereinafter, the ‘1894 Act’ ) was issued in respect of this acquired
rd
land way back on 23 January, 1965, followed by a Declaration under Section
th
6 of the 1894 Act on 7 February, 1966.
th
5. The Award confirming the said acquisition was passed on 19
September, 1986, bearing Award no. 33/86-87.
6. The said acquisition came to be challenged before this Court in W.P.(C)
8706/2014, titled Sh. Mahender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,
th
which was allowed vide judgement dated 6 July, 2015. The acquisition was
held to be lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (hereinafter, ‘the 2013 Act’) .
th
The relevant portion of the said judgment dated 6 July, 2015 is set out below:
“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 petitioners, 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 3 of 18

(4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents have also
taken the plea that the petitioners were subsequent
purchasers. This aspect is also covered against the
respondents in several decisions of this court including
Ranjana Bhatia v. Government of NCT of Delhi &
Ors, W.P.(C) No. 2210/2010 decided on 28.10.2014.
11. 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.”
th
7. An SLP was filed against this judgment dated 6 July, 2015 which
came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the batch of matters decided
in Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal and Others, (2024) 7 SCC 433,
wherein the lead matter was SLP Civil No. 26697/19 . The relevant M.A
related to this case was bearing Diary No. 12596 of 2023 in Civil Appeal no.
8631/2016 .
8. As per DDA v. Tejpal (supra) , the present acquisition proceedings fell
in ‘List C-1’. In respect of cases falling in ‘List C-1’ , the following directions
were issued by the Supreme Court :
“88.1. The time-limit for initiation of fresh
acquisition proceedings in terms of the provisions
contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is extended
by a year starting from 1-8-2024 whereupon
compensation to the affected landowners may be paid
in accordance with law, failing which consequences,
also as per law, shall follow;
88.2. The parties shall maintain status quo regarding
possession, change of land use, and creation of third-
party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings, as
directed above, are completed;”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 4 of 18

9. In terms of the above decision of the Supreme Court, fresh acquisition
st
proceedings were to be initiated within one year from 1 August, 2024 and
thereafter, compensation was to be paid to the affected landowners in
accordance with law. Until the initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings,
status quo was to be maintained with respect to the concerned land.
10. Pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the present case, the
st
LAC issued a public notice on 31 July, 2025. This notice was challenged by
the Petitioners, along with several other land owners in W.P.(C) 14725/2025,
titled Mandeep Singh Sehrawat & Ors. Vs. Govt. of Delhi & Ors.
11. In the said writ petition, the following persons were arrayed as
Petitioners:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 5 of 18

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 6 of 18

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 7 of 18

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 8 of 18

12. In the aforementioned petition being W.P.(C) 14725/2025 , serious
allegations were raised against the Petitioners, including the counsels
representing them on the ground that signatures of some of the Petitioners,
namely, Deepti Sehrawat and Saurabh Sehrawat were in fact, forged. The said
allegations were contained in CM APPL. 73188/2025 filed in W.P.(C)
14725/2025, as under:
“2. The petition has been filed by the purported co-
owners of land bearing Khasra No. 924 (4-16), 925 (4-
16), 926/1 (4-12) Delhi admeasuring 14 Bighas 2
Biswas, situated in Village Mahipalpur, New Delhi. It is
submitted that out rightly, the petitioners have played
fraud upon the court by preferring and filing petition on
behalf of some person who are residing outside India or
have not supported the petition. It is submitted that
Saurabh Sehrawat appearing at serial No.27 in the
memo of party of the writ petition is residing in
Australia and has not signed the present petition.
Similarly, Deepti Sehrawat, who is appearing at serial
No. 26 in the writ petition, has also not signed the
present writ petition, but by forging their signatures,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 9 of 18

the present petition has been filed. It is submitted that
attesting to the fact of forgery, Saurabh Sehrawat has
now vide E-mail dated 16th November 2025, given the
authorisation to Deepti Sehrawat to pursue his claim.
The email dated 16th November 2025 is annexed
herewith as Annexure-P-1.
3. It is further submitted that Petitioner No. 23, in the
memo of party of the writ petition, namely Kartik
Sehrawat, had been mislead and manipulated to sign
the affidavits but he does not want to contest the notice
of re-acquisition dated 31.7.2025 and wants
compensation. In view of apparent forgery,
falsification of the affidavits by the petitioners, it is
necessary that all the applicants/Petitioners in the writ
petition be kindly verified by the Hon'ble Court before
further adjudication of the petition.”
13. Pursuant to filing of this application, the said writ petition W.P.(C)
th
14725/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on 5 February, 2026, in the
following terms:
“2. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner had initially moved
an adjournment slip in this matter.
3. However, upon the matter being taken up in Court,
he submits that he has instructions to withdraw the
present writ petition.
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition, along with all
pending applications, is dismissed as withdrawn.”
14. As is evident from the above order dated 5th February, 2026, no leave
or liberty was sought by the Petitioners to file a fresh petition and the petition
was simply dismissed as withdrawn.
15. The present petition has now been filed by some of the Petitioners, who
had filed the earlier writ petition W.P.(C) 14725/2025, challenging the very
st
same public notice dated 31 July, 2025 and the consequential public notice
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 10 of 18

th
dated 9 February, 2026 and its corrigendum dated 23rd February, 2026. The
prayer is in Writ Petition is as under:
“A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the
public notice dated 31.07.2025 issued under Section 21
of the New Land Acquisition Act, 2013 in respect of the
Petitioners land bearing Khasra No. 924 (4-16), 925 (4
16), 926/1 (4-12), Village Mahipalpur, New Delhi;
B. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the
Public Notice dated 09.02.2026 and its Corrigendum
dated 23.02.2026 qua the land of the petitioners at the
S1. No.34 in Re-Acquisition 24(2) Cases List of the said
Notice, wherein the land of the petitioners has been
recommended for the re acquisition;
C. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed
just and proper in the interest of justice”
16. In the opinion of this Court, the present Petition would not be
maintainable, as the earlier writ petition W.P.(C) 14725/2025 was dismissed
as withdrawn without any liberty to file afresh. The said previous writ petition
was also filed challenging the public notice dated 31st July, 2025, and the
same prayer has been made in the present petition as well, despite the
Petitioner having been granted the liberty to raise the same challenge again.
The remaining two notices that are challenged are consequential notices to the
st
notice dated 31 July 2025.
17. The decision of the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v.
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior & Ors. [(1987) 1 SCC 5]
is clear and categorical to this effect that when a writ petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is dismissed as withdrawn without the
Petitioner seeking and being granted the liberty to file afresh another petition,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 11 of 18

then a second petition filed by the same Petitioner, raising challenge to the
same subject matter would not be permissible. The relevant portion of
Sarguja Transport Service (supra) reads as under:

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 12 of 18

only to the point of res judicata which has
been argued as a preliminary issue in these
writ petitions and no other.”
9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner
after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without
the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ
petition in the High Court under that article. On this point
the decision in Daryao case [AIR 1961 SC 1457 : (1962) 1
SCR 574] is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the
principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code
should be extended in the interests of administration of
justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on
the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public
policy as explained above. It would also discourage the
litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event
there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a
petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again.
While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High
Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may
not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does
not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been
abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of
action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it
without such permission. In the instant case the High
Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not
maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter
since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without
permission to file a fresh petition. We, however, make it
clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be
considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving
the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner
prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus
or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 13 of 18

different footing altogether. We, however, leave this question
open.”
18. The said decision of the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service
(supra) has since been reiterated and further strengthened by the Supreme
Court in several decisions. In Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1999)
1 SCC 81] , the Supreme Court applied the rationale in Sarguja Transport
Service (supra) to further hold that once an SLP filed against an order of the
High Court has been withdrawn without obtaining from the Court, liberty to
file an SLP again, a fresh SLP filed against the same impugned order would
not be maintainable. The relevant portions of the decision of Supreme Court
in Upadhyay & Co. (supra) reads as under:
“11. We made a recapitulation of the events as above for the
purpose of showing that the petitioner has absolutely no case
in the present SLPs. He cannot, at any rate, now challenge the
order of the High Court dated 3-5-1996 over again having
withdrawn the SLP which he filed in challenge of the same
order. It is not a permissible practice to challenge the same
order over again after withdrawing the special leave petition
without obtaining permission of the court for withdrawing it
with liberty to move for special leave again subsequently.
12. The above principle has been incorporated as a rule in the
realm of suits. Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
deals with withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of the
claim. Sub-rule (3) says that the court may in certain
contingencies grant permission to withdraw from a suit with
liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter
of such suit. Sub-rule (4) reads thus:
“1. (4) Where the plaintiff—
(a) abandons any suit or part of a claim under sub-rule (1), or
(b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the
permission referred to in sub-rule (3),
he shall be liable for such costs as the court may award and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 14 of 18

shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of
such subject-matter or such part of the claim.”
13. The aforesaid ban for filing a fresh suit is based on public
policy. This Court has made the said rule of public policy
applicable to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution (Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT [(1987) 1
SCC 5 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 19] ). The reasoning for adopting it
in writ jurisdiction is that very often it happens, when the
petitioner or his counsel finds that the court is not likely to
pass an order admitting the writ petition after it is heard for
some time, that a request is made by the petitioner or his
counsel to permit him to withdraw it without seeking
permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A court which is
unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant
liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit
withdrawal of the petition. When once a writ petition filed in
a High Court is withdrawn by the party concerned, he is
precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in
the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party
aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. If so, he
cannot file a fresh petition for the same cause once again.
The following observations of E.S. Venkataramiah, J. (as the
learned Chief Justice then was) are to be quoted here: (SCC
p. 12, para 9)
“[W]e are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of
Order 23 of the Code should be extended in the interests of
administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition
also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of
public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the
litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event
there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a
petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While
the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in the High Court
without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar
other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount
to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 15 of 18

Constitution of India should be deemed to have been
abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action
relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without
such permission.”
14. Of course their Lordships added that the above rule is not
applicable to writ petitions involving personal liberty “since
such a case stands on a different footing altogether”.
15. We have no doubt that the above rule of public policy, for
the very same reasoning, should apply to special leave
petitions filed under Article 136 of the Constitution also. Even
otherwise, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court on 3-5-1998 does not warrant interference on merits as
the learned Judges of the High Court have taken into account
all the relevant facts and come to the correct conclusion.”
19. The Supreme Court in another decision titled M.J. Exporters Private
Limited v. Union of India & Ors. [(2021) 13 SCC 543], while emphasising
on the principles of ‘constructive res judicata’, held as under:
“13. Mr K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Department, has drawn our attention to the order dated
2-8-2004 which was passed in M.J. Exports (P) Ltd. v. Union
of India [M.J. Exports (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, WP No. 1278
of 2004, order dated 2-8-2004 (Bom)] . His submission was
that in the earlier round of litigation before the High Court
when the demand of interest was questioned, it was given up
inasmuch as after arguments on this issue, the counsel for the
appellant had withdrawn the writ petition. At that time, while
allowing the appellant to withdraw the writ petition, the
dispute was confined only to the calculation of interest as is
clear from the order dated 2-8-2004 [M.J. Exports (P) Ltd. v.
Union of India, WP No. 1278 of 2004, order dated 2-8-2004
(Bom)] itself which specifically referred to the averments
made in Paras 6 and 7. These paragraphs have already been
extracted above. In Para 6 particularly, Respondent 1 made
some remarks about the calculation of the interest and had
stated that it needed recalculation. Therefore, after the
dismissal of the said writ petition as withdrawn, the only issue
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 16 of 18

that remains for consideration was how much interest is
payable and the correct calculations thereof. It is a matter of
record which flows from the correspondence exchanged
thereafter between the parties that insofar as the Department
is concerned, it only reworked the amount of interest and
demanded interest in the sum of Rs 4,67,02,251 after reducing
the figure from Rs 8,43,62,504 because of the reasons already
stated above.
14. Consequently in the second writ petition, when the
appellant as well as its counsel knew that the issue as to
whether the interest is payable or not on other grounds had
already been foreclosed in the earlier writ petition, the counsel
for the appellant did not make any submission with regard to
the aforesaid plea raising the issue in show-cause notice and
limited his prayer from the date from which the interest was to
be paid.
15. In these circumstances, we feel that when this issue was
raised and abandoned in the first writ petition which was
dismissed as withdrawn, the principles of constructive res
judicata which are laid down under Order 23 Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and which principles are
extendable to writ proceedings as well as held by this Court
in Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT [Sarguja Transport
Service v. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 19] would
squarely be applicable.
16. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that it is not
permissible for the appellant to now raise such arguments. We,
thus, do not find any error passed by the High Court which
results in the dismissal of this appeal.”
20. Furthermore, coming back to the facts of this case, this Court is also of
the view that since the initiation of the acquisition proceedings in terms of the
directions given in DDA v. Tejpal (supra) in respect of ‘List C-1’ has been
done within a period of one year, thus, even on merits, the acquisition in the
present case cannot be challenged.
21. The other Respondents i.e. Respondents No. 5 to 26, who are also co-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 17 of 18

owners of the acquired land, submit that they have already filed claims for
seeking fair compensation with respect to their acquisition under the 2013
Act.
22. Accordingly, this petition is also dismissed, with liberty granted to the
Petitioners to seek fair compensation under the 2013 Act, in accordance with
law.
23. In so far as the allegations of forgery are concerned, considering the
fact that the forged affidavit was given to the Counsel by one Mr. Ashok
Sehrawat, it appears that the Counsel is not at fault. The Court accepts the
apology tendered by the ld. counsel and decides not to take any further action.
24. However, insofar as the present petition is concerned, the same is
dismissed with Rs. l, 00,000/- as costs to be deposited by the Petitioners to the
Delhi State Legal Services Authority in the following account-
Name: Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
Bank: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court.
A/c No.: 15530110008386
IFSC Code: UCBA0001553
25. The present petition, along with pending application(s), if any, is
disposed of.
nd
26 List for compliance on 22 May, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
APRIL 10, 2026/ prg/ss
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.04.2026
18:34:32
W.P.(C) 3710/2026 Page 18 of 18