Purchasers of acquired land cannot resist demolition and are limited to pursuing compensation claims.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 235 sq. yards falling in Khasra No. 25/18, Village Shahipur, based on a sale deed executed in March 1966 in favour of his predecessor-in-interest, a registered Will dated 8 December 2009, and a partition deed dated 24 August 2012.

In July 2026, an inspection-cum-Nishan Dehi was conducted pursuant to an order dated 17 July 2026, and the petitioner’s property was identified for demolition in connection with a road-widening project.

The respondents contended that the land had already been acquired: a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 13 November 1959; a declaration under Section 6 followed on 15 July 1966; Award No. 2119 covering Khasra No. 25/18 was published on 28 June 1968; possession was taken on 31 July 1968; and compensation was deposited.

The respondents further submitted that the property obstructed a planned 24-metre-wide connecting road between Shalimar Bagh and Pitampura.

The petitioner sought protection from demolition, but ultimately undertook to vacate the property by 15 November 2026 due to his son’s wedding.

Whether the petitioner could resist demolition and retain possession of the subject property when the land had already been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, possession had been taken, and compensation had been deposited.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief in respect of the proposed demolition and, if so, whether he could pursue a claim for compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector or the concerned District Judge.

Whether demolition could be deferred for a limited period on humanitarian grounds to enable the petitioner to vacate the property voluntarily.

The Court applied Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which issuance of the acquisition notification and declaration, followed by an award, possession, and payment or deposit of compensation, culminate in the acquisition of the land by the State.

Once the land has been acquired and possession has been taken, a subsequent sale or mutation cannot confer an enforceable right to retain possession against the acquiring authorities; the affected person’s remedy is ordinarily to claim lawful compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector or the competent court.

The Court also exercised its equitable and humanitarian jurisdiction to grant a limited deferment of demolition, without recognising any continuing title or right of possession in the petitioner.

The Court found that the acquisition process substantially pre-dated the petitioner’s predecessor’s sale transaction: the Section 4 notification was issued in 1959, while the sale deed was executed in 1966, followed by the Section 6 declaration, award, taking of possession, and deposit of compensation.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s reliance on the later sale deed, mutation entries, Will, and partition deed could not defeat the completed acquisition or establish a right to obstruct the public project.

The Court held that no substantive relief against demolition could be granted because the land stood acquired, while preserving the petitioner’s remedy to lodge a compensation claim before the LAC, with reference to the District Judge if necessary.

Considering the petitioner’s personal circumstances and undertaking to vacate, the Court nevertheless granted temporary protection until 15 November 2026, after which the authorities could proceed with construction of the connecting road.

The petitioner was directed to vacate the subject property by 15 November 2026, and demolition or construction activity was restrained only until that date.

He was permitted to lodge his compensation claim before the LAC within 15 days, with adjudication by the concerned District Judge if required, and the claim was to be decided within six months of reference; if the LAC itself determined and disbursed compensation, the further directions would not apply.

In addition, GNCTD was directed to disburse an ex gratia amount of ₹3,00,000 to the petitioner by 10 October 2026.