Public interest in essential infrastructure prevails over unauthorized occupation of acquired government land.

The Petitioner, acting as a Special Power of Attorney holder for 98 occupants of Village Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh, challenged a Public Notice dated January 21, 2026, which proposed widening Road No. 320 to 30 meters

The subject land was originally notified for acquisition in 1959 and 1961 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the "Planned Development of Delhi," with awards passed in 1980–81

The Petitioner claimed continuous possession since 1962, asserting that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as physical possession was never taken

The occupants further relied on a 2010 meeting with the Lieutenant Governor where an assurance was allegedly given that road widening would be re-aligned to avoid demolishing residential structures

The Respondents (DDA and LAC) argued that the acquisition had already been upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court in previous litigations ending in 2000

They maintained that the occupants were encroachers on public land and that the road widening was essential for emergency services and traffic decongestion

The Court applied the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding the validity of historical acquisitions and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Section 24(2)) concerning the lapsing of such proceedings

It relied on the precedent in Prem Chand Ramesh Chand v. DDA (1997), which upheld the acquisition of this specific land and reached finality after the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP in 2000

The Court also referenced Delhi Development Authority v. Ram Rati (2018), establishing that protection under the NCT of Delhi (Special Provisions) Act, 2007 is not absolute when land is required for public infrastructure

Principles of the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD) 2021 and UTTIPEC approvals were used to determine road hierarchy and the necessity of the "Right of Way"

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s claim of title, noting that the occupants primarily relied on unregistered General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) executed post-acquisition, which do not confer legal title

Revenue records (akasa shajra and field books) produced by the Patwari disproved the Petitioner's contention that the road widening fell on unacquired land in Khasra No. 11, confirming it was an extension of the acquired Khasra No. 12

Regarding the alleged lapse of acquisition, the Court noted that the validity of the acquisition had already been settled by the Supreme Court in 2000; thus, the occupants were unauthorized encroachers on public land

The Court prioritized the "broader public interest" over private occupancy, observing through video evidence that the existing narrow road caused severe bottlenecks for ambulances, fire services, and school buses

It held that while a 2010 assurance existed, subsequent technical approvals by UTTIPEC in 2016 for a 30-meter road were necessitated by the expansion of nearby hospitals and public utilities, making the widening an "important infrastructural development" that could not be delayed

It held that private interests in encroached public land must yield to infrastructure needs

The Court directed: (i) the expansion to proceed per the 2016 UTTIPEC approval; (ii) occupants are granted until May 30, 2026, to voluntarily vacate the premises

(iii) GNCTD must sympathetically consider ex gratia compensation for the occupants; and (iv) the Respondents are authorized to remove all encroachments and unauthorized constructions after the May 30 deadline

All interim protections were vacated subject to the occupants' cooperation