Delhi HC Denies Land Claimants Liberty To File Fresh NHAI Acquisition Plea After Related Writ Was Dismissed For Non-Disclosure

The petition concerned land in Khasra Nos. 262/1, 262/2, 263, 264/1/2, 267, 268, 270 and 272/1 in Village Malikpur Kohi alias Rangpuri, acquired for the Dwarka Expressway under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHAI Act).

The petitioners claimed to have purchased the land in 1993. Their specific-performance suit resulted in a decree only for refund of ₹48,25,000, while the recorded owners were held entitled to possession; that judgment was under appeal and stayed.

The acquisition award was passed on 18 December 2018, and NHAI stated that possession had been taken in 2020 and 2021 and compensation deposited with the reference court.

The petitioners sought interim protection against demolition and challenged the acquisition, including on grounds relating to Section 101 of the 2013 Act and an allegedly incorrect khasra number in a notice.

At the hearing, petitioners’ counsel sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh; the Court declined to grant that liberty.

Section 3D(2) of the NHAI Act provides that, upon publication of the acquisition declaration, the land vests absolutely in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances.

Relying on NHAI v. M. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1, the Court noted that such vesting follows the Section 3D declaration and that possession may be taken after the compensation amount is deposited in accordance with Section 3H.

The Court also applied the principle that relief under Article 226 is discretionary and may be refused where a petitioner has concealed material facts or has not approached the Court with clean hands.

The petitioners’ Section 101 contention was recorded but was not separately adjudicated.

The Court considered that the Section 3D notification and award had issued, the petitioners had filed no objections under Section 3C, and compensation had been deposited; the release of compensation remained dependent on resolution of the competing civil claims.

It also noted NHAI’s account that possession had been taken in 2020 and 2021, contrasting with the petitioners’ assertion that possession was taken only in May 2026.

Further, the petitioners’ specific-performance suit had not granted them specific performance, and a separate writ petition by Petitioner No. 1 had been dismissed for non-disclosure of the present proceedings and related acquisition facts.

In light of these circumstances, the Court had earlier found no basis for interim relief and concluded that the petitioners did not merit liberty to bring a fresh writ petition.

The Court left open any remedies available to the petitioners for claiming compensation in respect of the subject land, in accordance with law.