Belated claims for unpaid land acquisition compensation remain actionable upon verification of legal heirship.

The Petitioners, claiming to be the sons and legal heirs of late Sukhpal Singh, approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 seeking verification of their claim and disbursement of compensation for land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola, Delhi, comprising several specified khasra numbers.

Sukhpal Singh was stated to be the recorded owner and Bhumidhar of the subject land, which was acquired pursuant to Award No. 21/1992–93 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Although compensation was determined under the award, neither Sukhpal Singh during his lifetime nor the Petitioners after his death allegedly received it.

Sukhpal Singh died on 12 November 2001, and the Petitioners stated that acquisition was completed only in 2007.

Their representations dated 19 May 2026 to the Land Acquisition Collector seeking the status and release of compensation remained undecided, leading to the present petition.

Whether the Petitioners’ belated claim for compensation for acquired land could be considered despite the delay in approaching the Court.

Whether the Land Acquisition Collector should verify the Petitioners’ status as legal heirs and process the release of compensation if it had not already been paid.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to secure payment of compensation for acquired property.

It applied the principle that delay and laches do not necessarily defeat a claim involving a continuing cause of action or circumstances that shock the judicial conscience, particularly where compensation for compulsory acquisition remains unpaid.

Relying on Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569, and the principles reiterated from Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353, the Court held that constitutional courts may intervene to promote justice where a person has been deprived of property without receiving legally due compensation.

The acquisition itself arose from Award No. 21/1992–93 made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Although the Court recognized that the Petitioners’ claim was considerably delayed, it treated the alleged non-payment of compensation as a continuing grievance and found that delay alone could not justify refusal to examine the claim.

The principles in Vidya Devi supported consideration of a belated compensation claim where the State had acquired or retained property without ensuring payment of compensation.

Since the Petitioners’ legal-heir status, the payment history, and the relevant land and acquisition records required factual verification, the Court did not directly order immediate payment.

Instead, it directed the Land Acquisition Collector to examine the Petitioners’ representations and supporting documents, and, if compensation remained unpaid, to process its release in accordance with law.

The entire exercise was to be completed within six months.

If objections arose, the matter was to be referred to the concerned District Judge in accordance with law.

The Court therefore allowed consideration of the belated claim but left actual disbursement subject to verification and legal determination.