Smt. Raj Kumari (Since Deceased) Through Her Legal Heirs vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21.05.2026
+ LPA 398/2026, CM APPL. 35152/2026, CM APPL. 35153/2026,
CM APPL. 35154/2026 & CM APPL. 35155/2026
SMT. RAJ KUMARI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER
LEGAL HEIRS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Ms. Nidhi Dalal, Mr.
Alok Dev, Mr. Alok Kumar & Ms.
Rachna Dalal, Advocates.
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur- Standing
Counsel along with Mr. Bir Inder
Singh Gurm & Mr. Kamlendu
Pandey, Advocates for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )
CM APPL. 35151/2026 (Condonation of Delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay of 74 days in filing
the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 35156/2026 (Exemption)
3. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
4. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 35157/2026 (Exemption)
5. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
6. The Application stands disposed of.
LPA 398/2026 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.05.2026
13:18:55

LPA 398/2026
7. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against Order dated
03.02.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed in W.P.(C) No.4176/2021 (“ Writ
Petition ”) whereby the Writ Petition filed by Late Smt. Raj Kumari
restraining the Respondents from taking over the possession of the land and
building situated at Khasra No. 45/23/2 and 52/3, ad-measuring 1100
sq.yds., village Prahladpur Bangar, Delhi (“ Property ”) has been dismissed.
8. Late Smt. Raj Kumari, wife of Appellant No. 1 and mother of
Appellant Nos. 2 to 5, was stated to be the owner of the Property. It is the
case of the Appellants that she had raised construction thereon and remained
in use and occupation of the same.
9. It is further the case of the Appellants that, after the demise of Smt.
Raj Kumari, they have continued to use and enjoy the Property. According
to them, although the Property had been purchased by Late Smt. Raj Kumari
long prior thereto, it was subjected to acquisition proceedings initiated by a
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“ Act ”) and
culminated in an Award under Section 6 thereof, however the physical
possession of the Property was never taken by the Respondents.
10. The Appellants further aver that the predecessor-in-title of Late Smt.
Raj Kumari had received compensation pursuant to the Award passed under
the Act, without any intimation to Late Smt. Raj Kumari.
11. The Property is stated to be situated in the Prahladpur Industrial Area,
an unauthorized industrial area. Vide notification dated 18.09.2007, the
Lieutenant Governor of the NCT of Delhi notified the in-situ development
of the Prahladpur Industrial Area and, inter alia , provided that where a
LPA 398/2026 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.05.2026
13:18:55

decision had been taken to regularize colonies, possession of lands forming
part thereof would not be taken, irrespective of whether such lands were
built up or otherwise.
12. On 26.04.2008, Prahladpur Bangar Jan Kalyan Vikas Samiti is stated
to have applied for regularization of the extended lal dora of village
Prahladpur Bangar, which included the land of Late Smt. Raj Kumari,
whereupon provisional regularization was issued. The process of
regularization is stated to be still pending. On 01.05.2012, Respondent No. 1
issued a notification laying down regulations relating to the redevelopment
of clusters of industrial concentration in non-conforming areas/unplanned
industrial areas, including the Prahladpur Industrial Area.
13. Thereafter, on 23.09.2013, the Government of India, vide Gazette
Notification, amended the Master Plan for Delhi- 2021 (“ MPD-2021 ”) and
included Prahladpur Bangar under the head “Industry” and the sub-heading
“Redevelopment of Unplanned Industrial Areas”.
14. The Appellants further state that certain unidentified officials of
Respondent No. 1 approached Late Smt. Raj Kumari and threatened that the
Property belonged to Respondent No. 1 and that possession thereof would
be taken after demolition of the building and boundary wall standing
thereon. It is in these circumstances that Late Smt. Raj Kumari instituted the
Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge seeking a writ of prohibition
restraining the Respondents from taking possession of the Property.
15. Vide the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge held that the
Property had been validly acquired by the Respondents and that the
acquisition proceedings had attained finality, particularly in view of the fact
LPA 398/2026 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.05.2026
13:18:55

that the predecessor-in-interest of Late Smt. Raj Kumari had claimed and
received compensation in respect of the acquired land. Consequently, the
Writ Petition came to be dismissed.
16. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellants, being the legal
heirs of Late Smt. Raj Kumari, have preferred the present Appeal.
17. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and
learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.
18. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Property is
situated within the Prahladpur Industrial Area, which was notified as an
industrial area by notification dated 11.09.2007, and vide notification dated
18.09.2007 issued by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of the NCT of Delhi,
it was decided that lands forming part of colonies in respect of which a
decision for regularization had been taken would not be taken into
possession, irrespective of whether such lands were built up or otherwise.
19. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellants that, the Property
being part of the said industrial area, possession thereof could not have been
taken over, particularly when the same also found mention in MPD-2021,
issued vide notification dated 23.09.2013 under the heading “Development
of Unplanned Industrial Area”.
20. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that, in the
counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, there was no specific denial of
the assertion that the Property was situated within the Prahladpur Industrial
Area, which was to be developed as an unplanned industrial area under
MPD-2021; however, the learned Single Judge failed to advert to the said
aspect in the Impugned Order.
LPA 398/2026 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.05.2026
13:18:55

21. It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the learned
Single Judge failed to appreciate that, once a right had been conferred in
law, the same could not be divested, and Respondent No. 1 could not be
permitted to contend contrary to the notifications issued by the competent
authorities.
22. Learned counsel for the Appellants also placed reliance upon the
National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of
Residents in Unauthorized Colonies) Act, 2019, under which transactions
relating to immovable properties based on documents such as power of
attorney, agreement to sell, will, possession letter, and other documents
evidencing payment of consideration in favour of a resident of an
unauthorized colony stand recognized. It was submitted that, since Late Smt.
Raj Kumari had purchased the Property by virtue of the Agreement to Sell,
General Power of Attorney, and Wills dated 29.09.2015, 30.12.2015, and
27.06.2016, the same could not thereafter be taken over by Respondent No.
1 once the ownership rights in respect thereof stood recognized under the
aforesaid Act of 2019.
23. On the aforesaid basis, learned counsel for the Appellants prayed that
the Impugned Order be set aside.
24. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the
purchase of the Property by Late Smt. Raj Kumari was contrary to Section 3
of the Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972, which prohibits any
person from purporting to transfer property situated in the Union Territory
of Delhi once the same has been acquired by the Central Government under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was further submitted that possession of
LPA 398/2026 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.05.2026
13:18:55

the Property had been handed over to Respondent No. 1 by the Land
Acquisition Collector on 09.05.2000 and that the award came to be passed
on 08.07.2002. It was also contended that neither the acquisition
proceedings nor the award had been challenged or set aside by any court of
competent jurisdiction and, therefore, since Late Smt. Raj Kumari had
purchased the Property subsequent to the acquisition, such purchase had no
legal sanctity in the eyes of law.
25. It was further submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the
Appellants had themselves admitted that the predecessor-in-interest of Late
Smt. Raj Kumari had received compensation for the acquired land, as is
evident from paragraph 13 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed in
the Writ Petition.
26. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the land that
has been acquired by the Government cannot be sold and as such the
purchase of the Property by Late Smt. Raj Kumari was void. In support of
this submission, the learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon the
following decisions:
(i) Premji Ratansey Shah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. ,
(1994) 5 SCC 547.
(ii) M. Venkatesh & Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore
Development Authority , (2015) 17 SCC 1.
(iii) Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. , (2019) 10 SCC
229.
(iv) Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment
Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society,
Jaipur & Ors. , (2013) 5 SCC 427.
LPA 398/2026 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.05.2026
13:18:55

(v) Hoshiyar Singh & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority , 2014
LAWPACK (Del) 54111 .
27. The learned Counsel for the Respondents also submitted that a
trespasser in the government land is not entitled to any show cause notice as
he/she has no right to be on the said land. In support of this submission, the
learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon the following decisions:
(i) B.R. Anand v. DDA & Ors. , 2005 (125) DLT 116.
(ii) Rakesh Jain v. NDMC & Ors. , 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1125.
28. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that
the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
29. We have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the
Parties. We have also perused the Impugned Order and examined the
material placed on record.
30. The principal contention urged on behalf of the Appellants is that the
Property is situated within the Prahladpur Industrial Area and that, in view
of the various notifications and MPD-2021, Respondent No. 1 lacks the
authority to take possession thereof.
31. However, it is an admitted position that the Property was purchased
by Late Smt. Raj Kumari after the same had already been acquired under the
Act, and that the predecessor-in-title of Late Smt. Raj Kumari had received
compensation in respect of the Property without any intimation to her.
32. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Appellants do not possess any
right, title, or interest in the Property and cannot claim to continue in
possession thereof, the Property having been lawfully acquired and
LPA 398/2026 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.05.2026
13:18:55

compensation in respect thereof having already been received by their
predecessor-in-title.
33. Accordingly, the purchase of the Property was clearly contrary to the
Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. Section 3 of the said Act
reads as under:
“ 3. Prohibition on transfer of lands acquired by Central
Government .—No person shall purport to transfer by sale,
mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in
the Union territory of Delhi, which has been acquired by the Central
Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (1 of 1984), or
under any other law providing for acquisition of land for a public
purpose.”
34. In our considered view, any purchase of the Property by Late Smt. Raj
Kumari, in whatsoever form, was void being in contravention of Section 3
of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. Consequently, the
Appellants cannot derive any benefit from the provisions of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in
Unauthorized Colonies) Act, 2019.
35. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the Respondents
apply squarely to the facts of the present case. Once the Property had been
acquired under the Act and compensation in respect thereof had been
received, no valid transfer of the same could thereafter have been effected.
In such circumstances, the remedy, if any, available to the Appellants would
lie in seeking appropriate relief against the predecessor-in-title of Late Smt.
Raj Kumari for having purported to transfer the Property despite its prior
acquisition and receipt of compensation.
LPA 398/2026 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.05.2026
13:18:55

36. In view of the foregoing, we find no ground to interfere with the
Impugned Order, which is accordingly affirmed. Consequently, the present
Appeal, along with all pending applications, stands dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 21, 2026
‘gsr’
LPA 398/2026 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.05.2026
13:18:55