Land acquisition power cannot be exercised to circumvent judicial decrees or undertakings to vacate premises.

The Petitioner, owner of Plot No. 16, Kailash Nagar, Delhi, successfully obtained an eviction decree against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), which had occupied the land as a tenant for decades

In RSA 249/06, the MCD gave a formal undertaking to the Court to vacate the premises by 30.06.2010

Instead of vacating, the MCD initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and passed an Award while contempt proceedings for failing to vacate were pending

Internal note sheets revealed that the MCD fast-tracked the acquisition specifically to dispose of the contempt petition where the Commissioner was required to be personally present

The Petitioner challenged the acquisition as mala fide and a colorable exercise of power

1. Whether the acquisition of the subject land by the MCD, initiated after failing to honor a judicial undertaking to vacate, was bona fide or a mala fide attempt to circumvent an eviction decree

2. Whether the respondent could validly challenge the identity or title of the property based on Khasra number discrepancies after having paid rent to the Petitioner for five decades

The Court evaluated the standards for mala fide land acquisition and the conduct expected of public authorities.

State of A.P. & Ors. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti (2003) regarding whether acquisition to avoid eviction constitutes legal malice

Gojer Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2013)

The Court emphasized that public authorities must conduct themselves in a manner that establishes "trust and faith" and that high-handedness by a tenant-authority to bypass the law is impermissible

The Court found that the MCD’s decision to acquire the land was prima facie not bona fide, as it was triggered only after the MCD failed to honor its undertaking to the Court

The Bench dismissed the Land Acquisition Collector's (LAC) challenge to the Petitioner's title as "shocking," noting that the MCD’s long-term payment of rent and the internal notes linking the acquisition to the pending contempt case removed any doubt regarding property identity or ownership

The Court observed that the MCD's actions reflected a conduct "completely unbecoming" of high-ranking public officials, essentially using the power of eminent domain to regularize their own default as a tenant

It was noted that while the MCD deposited ₹40 lakhs, the market value was likely significantly higher

The Commissioner, MCD, must file a fresh affidavit after re-evaluating the case, providing details on the school's functioning, student strength, and availability of alternative schools

The Petitioner must submit the current market value and photographs of the property

Status quo regarding the structure was maintained, with the Court seeking to verify if permanent construction was illegally carried out under the guise of repairs

The matter was listed for further hearing on 18th May, 2026