Dismissed

Devender v. the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC25 Sept 2025W.P.(C)/14477/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking restoration of ancestral land or compensation acquired by the Delhi Government in 1977. The petitioners filed an RTI application in 2018 after discovering public parks on the site. The Court found the petition barred by delay and laches, holding the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof.

What did the court decide?

The petition for return of ancestral land or award of compensation stands dismissed with pending applications disposed of.

Devender Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 25^th September, 2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 14477/2025 & CM APPL. 59276/2025, CM APPL. 59277/2025

¶5

DEVENDER .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Swati Rathi, Mr. Rohit Boora, Mr. Chetishtha Malik, Mr. Sachin Aanad, Ms. Sonam, Ms. Rakhi Budhiraza, Ms. Priyadarshani, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harshit Chopra, Adv. for Respondent no.2/MCD with Mr. Vijay-AD Horticulture, Rohini Zone, MCD and Ramesh Dabas, JSA, Rohini Zone, MCD Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for respondents no. 3 and 4.

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶9

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶10

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Da te:2 6.09.2025 W.P.(C)14477/2025 Page 1 of 5 16:10:08

¶14

The prayer in petition reads as under:-

¶15

“a. To direct the Respondents toreturn the ancestral property of the petitioner i.e. land of Khasra. No.-568, (2-07) of village Sultan PurMajra, North-Dest, Delhi to the petitioner in its original form in the interest of Justice, or

¶16

b. To direct the Respondents to award the compensation as per the current rate to the petitioner for the said land/property which has been illegally been possessed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in the interest of justice.”

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that the ancestors of the petitioner were the owners of the land in question, as could be inferred from paragraph 4 of the writ petition.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner that Section 4 and Section 6 notifications in relation to the said land were issued on 2nd March, 1977 and 10th April, 1978, respectively.

¶19

According to petitioner, post the issuance of the aforesaid notifications neither there exists any award nor the compensation was paid, which has prompted the petitioner to apply under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘ RTI Act ’) .

¶20

According to petitioner, there is no mention as to the date of award or the date on which the payment of compensation was made to the petitioner. As such, it is his case that he has reasons to believe that in past, there was no award in relation to land in question and as such neither the compensation is paid nor the revenue entries are changed as the said entries even today stand in the name of the petitioner.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Da te:2 6.09.2025 16:10:08

¶23

W.P.(C)14477/2025 Page 2 of 5

¶24

Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation or alternatively he is entitled to return of the land.

¶25

As against above, Mr. Pathak , learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Land Acquisition Collector (‘ LAC ’) and acquiring body-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘ MCD ’), object to the maintainability of the petition at such a belated stage. According to respective counsels, not only do the pleadings in the petition depicts that the petitioner claims to be have had the knowledge of Section 4 and Section 6 notifications of 1977 and 1978, the fact remains that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that the land in question was developed by the MCD and as of today, there exists a public park, i.e., Parshuram Park, Raj Park, Sultanpur, Delhi. As such, it is claimed that the petition not only suffers from delay and laches, but also the same does not reflect any right in the petitioner to claim in the least, compensation.

¶26

We have appreciated the rival claims.

¶27

The issuance of notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 on 2^nd March, 1977 and 10^th April, 1978 can be inferred out of the pleadings of the petitioner.

¶28

Subsequent thereto, it is the petitioner’s case that for the first time, he applied under RTI Act on 10^th October, 2018, as he was not supplied with the copy of the award or any statement about the payment of compensation. The petitioner himself has admitted in

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Da te:2 6.09.2025 16:10:08

¶31

W.P.(C)14477/2025 Page 3 of 5

¶32

the petition that he has discovered in 2018 that there exist the public parks, i.e ., Parshuram Park and Raj Park.

¶33

If we consider the aforesaid pleadings of the petitioner in the light of the following factual matrix, it could be inferred that petitioner is trying to take the advantage of the non-availability of the documents.

¶34

In the affidavit in support of the petition, the petitioner claims that he is about 54 years of age. In 1977, as such he was of the age of seven years and during that period his father, uncle, his grandfather who are narrated to be owners, as reflected in the pleadings in paragraph 4, were aware about the existence of acquisition proceedings.

¶35

Even the Evidence Act presupposes and presumes the existence of official records. Merely because in 2018, the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of award or that of the receipt and payment of compensation does not by itself confer any legitimate right or a locus upon the petitioner to question the acquisition.

¶36

The petitioner perhaps is trying to demonstrate before the Court that his land is illegally taken over by the respondent. If we consider the nature of development, i.e . the development of public parks or the land allegedly owned by the ancestors of the petitioner, it is evident that the land underwent development for a substantial period at the behest of the public authority. As such, the petitioner, in such an eventuality, cannot claim that he had no knowledge about such development.

¶37

Signature Not Verified Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Da te:2 6.09.2025 16:10:08

¶38

W.P.(C)14477/2025 Page 4 of 5

¶39

Therefore, in our opinion, the petition not only suffers from delay and laches but the petitioner has not able to discharge his initial burden of demonstrate that he is entitled to the relief claimed in the petition. Merely because in 2018, he applied under RTI Act for grant of information that by itself would not confer a cause in the petitioner to approach before this Court and to bring the claim within the limitation.

¶40

As such, not only petition lacks merit but also suffers from substantial delay and laches.

¶41

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

¶42

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶43

A copy of this judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.

¶44

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE (JUDGE)

¶45

ANISH DAYAL (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 /pr/sk

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Da te:2 6.09.2025 16:10:08

¶48

W.P.(C)14477/2025 Page 5 of 5

Devender v. the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devender v. the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ex Insp Exe Hitendra Yadav Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajiv Gupta Vs Indian Bank Limited & Ors.

Abhay Singh Yadav Vs M/S Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd.

Megha Agarwal & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Smt Sharda Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mrs. Poonam Vs Managing Society National Public School & Ors.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Ayodhya Prasad

Mrs. Rashmi Sharma Vs Managing Society National Public School & Ors.

Sh Inderjeet Singh Vs Smt Kaushalya Devi and Ors.

Vinod Kashyap Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Rajiv Savara and Anr. Vs Archaeological Survey of India and Ors.

Rajni Bareja & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Mandir Sita Ramji Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sh. Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.