Wednesday, February 25, 2026
Latest:
delhihighcourt

ANAND PRAKASH vs STATE AND ANR

Information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 08.08.2024
+ W.P.(C) 3536/2014 & CM No. 51277/2023
ANAND PRAKASH ….. Petitioner
versus
STATE AND OTHERS ….. Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr.Rahul Gupta, Mr.Shekhar Gupta, Ms.Mansha Gutpa, Mr.Raghwendra Pratap Rao, Mr.Shashank Upadhayay, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.M.S.Akhtar, Ms.Nidhi Thakur and Mr.Mayank Arora, Advocates for R1 and R2.
Ms.Manika Tripathy, SC, Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik and Mr.naveen K Sraswat, Advocates for DDA
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner claims that he owns an agricultural land ad-measuring 5 bighas and 13 biswas (5-13) comprising in Khasra No.24/7/1 (5-2) and Khasra No.24/14/2 (0-11) situated in the revenue estate of village Bamnoli, Delhi (hereafter the subject land). The petitioner further claims that the acquisition of the subject land has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter the 2013 Act).
2. The petitioner claims that on 29.11.1996, a scheme for consolidation was announced in respect of village Bamnoli, Delhi. The same was duly confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in terms of the order dated 11.04.1997. He claims that owners and Bhoomidhars of the agricultural land in village Bamnoli, Delhi were invited to file applications for allotment of residential and commercial plots in the said village in lieu of their original land. The petitioner had also submitted an application for allotment of residential and commercial plots in lieu of his agricultural land before the concerned authorities. However, the said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Consolidation Officer /Tehsildar by an order dated 19.11.2005.
3. The petitioner appealed against the order dated 19.11.2005 before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi by filing a Revision Petition (Case No.135/2005). However, the same was also rejected by an order dated 05.12.2008. The petitioner impugned the order dated 05.12.2008 of the learned Financial Commissioner in a writ petition [being W.P.(C) No.8372/2009 captioned Anand Prakash v. Consolidation Officer / Tehsildar]. However, the said writ petition of the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.11.2009. The petitioner appealed the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Cout in LPA No.659/2009 but that too was dismissed by this Court on 06.03.2012. The petitioner filed an SLP(C) Nos.14106-14107/2012 against the order dated 06.03.2012 before the Supreme Court which were dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 17.01.2014.
4. The petitioner claims that he was granted liberty to approach this Court but he instead of availing the said remedy filed the present petition as in the meantime the 2013 Act had come into force and according to the petitioner, the acquisition of the subject land had lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
5. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter the LAC Act) was issued in respect of certain lands situated in village Bamnoli, Delhi for development of Dwarka Phase-II, New Delhi on 04.11.2004. In terms of the said notification, land ad-measuring 2100 bighas and 06 biswas was proposed to be acquired. Admittedly, the said land also included the subject land. The Notification under Section 4 of the LAC Act was followed by a declaration dated 31.10.2005 under Section 6 of the LAC Act. Thereafter, on 06.08.2008, an award was published which included the subject land at serial no.117. The petitioner claims that he has not been paid compensation for the subject land in terms of the award and since the same was pending for over five years after the 2013 Act come into effect, the acquisition of the subject land has elapsed.
6. The petitioner also claims that he continues to be in occupation and possession of the subject land and had also filed photographs reflecting some persons harvesting crops. The petitioner claims that the land as reflected in the photographs is the subject land and he has been cultivating the same.
7. Respondent no.2 / Land Acquisition Collector (South West) filed an affidavit claiming that the physical possession of the subject land was taken over on 12.09.2007 and the same was handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
8. This Court found that the compensation had not been paid to the petitioner in respect of the subject land and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.: (2014) 3 SCC 183, by judgment dated 01.10.2014, this Court had declared that the acquisition of the subject land under the LAC Act had lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
9. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) appealed the judgment dated 01.10.2014 passed by this Court before the Supreme Court [being SLP(C) No.8856/2023 resulting in Civil Appeal No.3186/2023]. The Supreme Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the order dated 01.10.2014 and remanded the matter to this Court for consideration afresh in lieu of the decision of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others: 2020 (8) SCC 129. The Supreme Court noted that whilst the Court had found that the petitioner had not been paid the compensation for the subject land, the Court had not examined the question whether possession of the subject land was taken over by the LAC.
10. In Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others (supra), the Supreme Court has held that both the conditions as set out in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – that possession of the subject land has not been taken over and compensation has not been paid – are required to be satisfied for an acquisition to lapse by virtue of the said provisions.
11. After the petition was remanded to this Court, the DDA filed an application for impleadment (CM No.51281/2023). The same was allowed by an order dated 08.11.2023 and the DDA was impleaded as respondent no.3 to the present petition.
12. Respondent no.2/LAC filed an additional affidavit and submitted that an award (Award No.1/2007-08) was made in respect of the total land admeasuring 2100 bighas and 06 biswas. Out of the aforesaid land the possession of 1260 bighas and 18 biswas was taken over. Respondent no.2/LAC claims that possession of 664 bighas 18 biswas of land could not be taken over due to the stay order passed by this Court and possession of 174 bighas 10 biswas could not be taken over as the same was built up. Respondent no.2/LAC also averred that out of the total compensation of ?1,11,75,72,754/-, a compensation of ?89,08,80,652/- was disbursed to the recorded owners and only a balance sum of ?22,66,92,102/- remained to be disbursed.
13. Respondent no.2 / LAC has also filed copy of the proceedings for taking over possession of the lands covered under Award No.1/2007-08. The copy of the proceedings indicates that the same commenced on 12.09.2007 and concluded on 14.09.2007. The possession of the lands was handed over to the DDA on the spot.
14. The DDA has also filed an affidavit affirming that it had taken over possession of the lands in question.
15. A close examination of the minutes of the proceedings as produced on record indicates that the subject land is included in the lands, possession of which was taken over during the course of the proceedings on 12.09.2007.
16. In view of the above, the twin conditions as set out in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not cumulatively satisfied.
17. The petitioner has filed a response enclosing therewith a report of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG) on the land management in DDA. The CAG has found certain deficiencies and had reported the same. The petitioner relies on certain observations made in the report which highlighted the observations to the effect that out of land admeasuring 2100 bighs and 06 biswas only 1337 bighas and 09 biswas had been received from the Delhi Government. The petitioner also submitted that there is a discrepancy in the quantum of compensation claimed to have been disbursed as stated in the affidavit filed by the LAC and as stated by the DDA in its additional affidavit. He also submitted that the report of the CAG indicates that the compensation released by DDA to Delhi Government (LAC) had not been released to the land owners.
18. Whilst it is not necessary for this Court to examine in any further detail the controversy whether the compensation for the subject land was paid by the beneficiary (DDA) and tendered / deposited by the LAC. The record clearly indicates that the possession of the subject land was taken over during the course of the proceedings on 12.09.2007. Thus, in any view the twin conditions as specified in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are not established.
19. In view of the above, the petitioner’s prayer that acquisition of the subject land has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be accepted.
20. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The pending application is also dismissed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
AUGUST 08, 2024
‘gsr’

W.P.(C) No.3536/2014 Page 1 of 2