Mahinder Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Date of decision: 3 September, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 7 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010916442025
+ W.P.(C) 17616/2025
MAHINDER SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anjani Kr. Mishra, Mr. Kailash
Shakya, Mr. Sambhav Shekhar and
Mr. Mohit Kr Maurya, Advocates.
(M) 9807859580
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar, SPC with Mr.
Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Ms.
Nasreen Khatoon, G.P for Union Of
India. (M) 9540293691
Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Siddhartha
Goswami and Mr. Aditya Sachdeva,
Advocate. (M) 918800111333
Mr. Siddharth Panda and Mr Anil
Pandey, Advs. for R2 and R4.
(M) 9891488088
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners, inter alia, seeking
th
release of the Petitioner’s 3/4 share of land in Khasra No. 4/26 (50.20 acres)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:00:10
W.P.(C) 17616/2025 Page 1 of 8

and Khasra no. 10/27 (42.7 acres) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village
Sahipur Beriwala Bagh, P.S. Shalimar Bagh, District-North West Delhi -
110088.
th
3. Vide order dated 20 November, 2025, this Court had observed clearly
that the Petitioners had to address the Court justifying their claim that the
subject land was acquired through supplementary Award.
nd
4. Thereafter on 2 February, 2026, the LAC was directed to check up the
status of the land of the Petitioners and make submissions.
5. Now the status report has been filed by the LAC which shows that the
th
entire land in question was acquired way back on 13 November, 1959 by
way of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter “ 1894 Act ”) which was followed by a declaration under
Section 6 of the 1894 Act and compensation was also paid. It is also stated
that possession of the subject land was taken on 31st July, 1968.
th
6. Thereafter, a supplementary award was also issued on 19 September,
1986 in respect of Khasra No. 4/26/2 measuring 20 Bighas situated in the
revenue estate of village Sahipur, Delhi. The owners of the said land had filed
a writ petition being CWP No. 2290/1986 in which initially a stay order was
granted, but thereafter the same was set aside and vacated. The SLP(C) No.
1263/2006 against the said order was also dismissed on 13th July, 2017.
7. As per the status report of the LAC, the compensation is stated to have
also been deposited and the Revenue Deposit Register to the tune of
Rs. 4,61,429/- has also been placed on record. The name of the Petitioner is
also reflected in the said Revenue Deposit Register, which is annexed as
Annexure R-1 to the said status report. The relevant portion of the LAC’s
affidavit is set out below:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:00:10
W.P.(C) 17616/2025 Page 2 of 8

“4. That the land in question, i.e., Khasra Nos.
10//27(22-18) and 4//26 min (5-01), along with other
adjoining Khasra numbers, was acquired by the
Government vide Notification under Section 4 dated
13.11.1959, followed by Notification under Section 6
dated 12.07.1966 pertaining to Village Sahipur, Delhi,
pursuant to which Award No. 2119 was passed by the
then Land Acquisition Collector (LAC). The total land
acquired under the said Award measured 114 Bighas
and 17 Biswas, and as per the revenue records, the
recorded owner of the aforesaid Khasra numbers was
Sh. Harphool S/o Ramjas. It is pertinent to mention that
possession of the subject land had already been taken
over by the answering respondent on 31.07.1968.
Insofar as compensation is concerned, it is respectfully
submitted that objections regarding ownership of
Khasra Nos. 10//27 (22-18) and 4//26 min (5-01) were
raised by Sh. Laxman and others. Consequently, a
reference under Sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, along with the awarded compensation
amounting to Rs. 94,753.98/-, was referred to the Court
of Shri M.R. Sikka, ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide
Refund Voucher No. 28 dated 17.12.1968, to the extent
of the aforesaid land. The remaining compensation
amount of Rs. 2,16,062.12/- was paid to Sh. Harphool
S/o Ramjas in respect of the remaining land measuring
86 Bighas and 18 Biswas out of the total acquired land
measuring 114 Bighas and 17 Biswas.
5. That it is further submitted that thereafter, a
supplementary Award bearing No. 2119A dated
19.09.1986 was passed by the then LAC, whereby land
falling in Khasra No. 4//26/2 (20-00), measuring 20
Bighas and situated in the revenue estate of Village
Sahipur, Delhi, was acquired by the Government. As per
the Naksha Mutazamin, the recorded owners of the said
land were Lakshman Singh, Shashi Ram, and Rajaram,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:00:10
W.P.(C) 17616/2025 Page 3 of 8

all sons of Sh. Phokhar, each having a one-third share
therein. It is respectfully submitted that possession of the
aforesaid land could not be taken due to the admitted
fact that operation of the said Award had been stayed in
Writ Petition bearing No. CWP No. 2290/1986. The said
stay order was vacated on 10.03.2005 upon disposal of
the writ petition, whereby the acquisition proceedings
were upheld by this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the said
order dated 10.03.2005 was challenged by the
landowners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way
of SLP(C) No. 1263/2006, wherein the Hon'ble Court,
vide order dated 24.04.2009, was pleased to stay the
operation of the order dated 10.03.2005. Ultimately, the
said SLP came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court on 13.07.2017. Accordingly, there was no
occasion for the answering respondent to take
possession of the said land during the subsistence of the
aforesaid proceedings. However, the entire awarded
compensation amount of Rs.4,61,429/- including
awarded compensation of 4//26/2(20-00) was deposited
in Revenue Deposit vide RD No. 544 dated 30.03.1987,
as although notices under Section 12(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act were duly issued to the persons
interested, some of the landowners failed to come
forward to receive the compensation amount, thereby
necessitating deposit of the same in the Revenue Deposit
by the answering respondent. A copy of the Revenue
Deposit Register is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-R/1.”
8. The Revenue Deposit Register is extracted as under:
“ Application Registration Register No. 2
Photocopy Branch (Illegible)
Annexure No.- 2119-A Vill. Sahipur, Delhi. Amnt. Rs. 4,61,429/-P.R.D.
No.
544/30.3.87
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:00:10
W.P.(C) 17616/2025 Page 4 of 8

S.
No.
Sl. No. of
Application
Signature
of receiver
with date
Date Sl. No. of
Application
Signature
of
receiver
with date
1 Lakshman
Singh S/o
illegible
Rs. 19,08
0= 34 P.
-
2 Shri Ram
S/o same as
above
Rs. 19,080
= 33P
-
3 Raj Ram
S/o same as
above
Rs. 19,080
= 33P
-
4 Mahindra
Singh S/o
Risal
Rs. 6,010
= 30P
-
5 Surendra
Singh S/o
same as
above
Rs. 6,010
= 30P
-
6 Ram Gopal
S/o Ram
Mehar
Rs. 8,553
= 25P
-
7 Rattan
Singh S/o
same as
above
Rs. 8553 =
24P
-
8 Sardev
Singh S/o
same as
above
Rs. 8,553
= 29P
-
9 Lakshmi
D/o same as
above
Rs. 6,414
= 94P
-
10 Ram Kumar
S/o same as
above
Rs. 6,414
= 93P
-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:00:10
W.P.(C) 17616/2025 Page 5 of 8

9. In this petition, notice was yet to be issued. It is clear from the above
that the twin conditions in terms of Indore Development Authority v.
Manohar Lal & Ors., SLP(C) No.9036/2016 are not satisfied in the present
case. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
“363. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
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 Act of 2013, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of Act of 2013.
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 Act of
2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.
3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or
as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013
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.
4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2)
of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit
is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:00:10
W.P.(C) 17616/2025 Page 6 of 8

been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings
then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of
notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case
the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition
Act of 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 Act of 2013 has to be paid to the
"landowners" as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation
as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, 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). Land
owners who had refused to accept compensation or who
sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim
that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to
be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section
24(1)(b).
7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894
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 Act
of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting
provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section
24(2).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:00:10
W.P.(C) 17616/2025 Page 7 of 8

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 Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding
for land acquisition pending with concerned authority
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 .
9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 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 Act
of 2013, 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.”
10. Accordingly, since the compensation has been deposited and it is the
case of the Government that the possession has also been taken way back in
1968, no relief is therefore liable to be granted in the present petition.
11. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2026/ jg/msh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:00:10
W.P.(C) 17616/2025 Page 8 of 8