Disposed

Amin Ur Rehman v. Govt of Nct. of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC16 Sept 2026W.P.(C)/13555/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner claimed rights over land acquired for a Common Effluent Treatment Plant and sought compensation. The LAC disputed the claim, stating possession was taken long ago and only two other claimants were recognized. The court directed the LAC to examine the petitioner's documents for genuineness and validity, and if entitled, process compensation within six months, or relegate the petitioner to civil court for title determination.

What did the court decide?

The LAC is directed to examine the petitioner's documents for genuineness and validity; if entitled, process compensation within six months, else relegate to civil court for title determination.

Amin Ur Rehman Vs Govt of Nct. of Delhi and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~42

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16^th September, 2026 Uploaded on: 17^th September, 2026

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010439682026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 13555/2026 and CM APPL. 63158/2026, CM APPL. 63159/2026 and CM APPL. 63160/2026

¶5

AMIN UR REHMAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT OF NCT. OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. M. S. Akhtar Advs. for R-1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶9

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶10

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to determine and release the compensation to the Petitioner in respect of Award No. 1/2000-2001/DC (North-West).

¶12

The case of the Petitioner is that he has rights in the land ad- measuring 5 bighas 13 biswas comprised in Khewat No. 66, Khatauni No. 142, Village Chowkri Mubarakabad, New Rohtak Road, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. According

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

W.P.(C) 13555/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 7.09.2026 17:17:22

¶17

to the Petitioner, the said land is now referred to as property No. 17/6. The Petitioner claims to have acquired knowledge only in 2026 that the subject land has been acquired. This position is severely disputed by the LAC.

¶18

In fact, the Petitioner’s case is that he had filed another writ petition being W.P. (Crl.) No. 15/2024 titled ‘Amin Ur Rehman v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi’ in which the following prayers were made:-

¶19

“a. Issue an appropriate Writ including a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to ensure life, liberty and property of the petitioner admeasuring 5 bighas 13 biswas in khewat no. 66 khatauni no. 142 in the area of Village Chowkri Mubarakabad, New Rohtak Road, Near Railway Line, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi presently known as property bearing old nos. 6/1 and 6/5 (now New No. 17/6) situated at New Rohtak Road, Daya Basti, Delhi-110035 from miscreants/ antisocial elements as the petitioner is lawfully entitled to full and unobstructed, unimpeded; use, possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶20

b. Issue an appropriate Writ including a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents particularly respondent no. 3 for discharging public duty instead of creating any hindrance/obstruction with the use, possession and enjoyment of the property as mentioned above; and

¶21

c. Pass such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶22

W.P. (Crl.) No. 15/2024 was decided vide order dated 5^th September, 2024 in the following terms:-

¶23

“CRL.M.A. 26810/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 15/2024

¶24

1. An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of petitioner for directing

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

W.P.(C) 13555/2026

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 7.09.2026 17:17:22

¶29

respondent No.2/DCP, North District, New Delhi to ensure safety of life and property of the petitioner.

¶30

2. Issue notice. Learned ASC for State/respondents appears on advance notice and accepts notice.

¶31

3. In brief, petitioner claims to be the recorded owner of property measuring 5 bighas 13 biswas in Khewat No.66 Khatauni No.142 in the area of Village Chowkri Mubarakbad, New Rohtak Road, Near Railway Line, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. Further a complaint to DCP alongwith other authorities is stated to have been made by petitioner on 01.04.2021 alleging that some antisocial elements tried to trespass the property with intention to raise illegal construction.

¶32

4. On the other hand, status report has been filed on behalf of State/respondent No.1, which reflects that ownership of aforesaid property is disputed by government agency i.e. DSIIDC which had stopped the work carried out by petitioner. It is further submitted that the dispute as to ownership of property needs to be resolved through civil litigation, in case, petitioner has any grievance against DSIIDC.

¶33

5. Apparently, status report filed on behalf of respondent No.1/State reflects that construction, if any, carried out by petitioner is disputed by DSIIDC claiming to be owners of property. In case, petitioner has any grievance, the same can be adjudicated in civil proceedings between the parties. It is also pertinent to note that DSIIDC has not been impleaded as party in the present petition.

¶34

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that disputed question of ownership between the parties cannot be adjudicated by way of present petition and need to be adjudicated before civil court.

¶35

Petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the rights and contentions of the parties open. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Date already fixed i.e. 25.09.2024, stands cancelled.”

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

W.P.(C) 13555/2026

¶38

Page 3 of 5

¶39

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 7.09.2026 17:17:22

¶40

Thereafter, SLP (Crl) No. 15646/202 4 titled ‘Amin Ur Rehman v, State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.’ was also preferred against the order dated 5^th September, 2024, however, the SLP was disposed of in the following terms:-

¶41

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks police protection as he alleges that he has not been allowed to enter his property. We are not in a position to decide such a prayer of similar relief which has already been dismissed by the Delhi High Court in a Writ Petition(Cr1.)No.15/2024 vide its order dated 05.09.2024.

¶42

We are not in a position to interfere with this matter. However, purely in the interest of justice, the petitioner would always be at liberty to seek such prayer/relief in accordance with law, before the police authorities concerned.

¶43

The present petition is disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any.”

¶44

The case of the Petitioner is that sometime in 2025-2026 the Petitioner came to know that the possession of his land has already been taken by the Land and Building Department. The Petitioner is also stated to have made a representation on 2nd March, 2026 seeking release of compensation in respect of his land.

¶45

Award No.1/2000-2001 (North-West) has been placed on record wherein, the purpose of acquisition is ‘For a Public Purpose, namely, for construction of Common Effluent Treatment Plant & under P.D.D. of Delhi’ . 9. In the said award, the total acquisition is of land parcel of 11 bighas and 16 biswas and there were two claimants i.e., Shri. Ram Lal Bansiwal and Shri Shyam Lal Bansiwal.

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

W.P.(C) 13555/2026

¶48

Page 4 of 5

¶49

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 7.09.2026 17:17:22

¶50

According to the ld. Counsel for the LAC, no other person had raised any claim and the possession of the subject land was also taken long back. 11. Since the possession has already been taken, the only relief that this Court is inclined to grant is that the representation of the Petitioner may be decided by the LAC in accordance with law.

¶51

Accordingly, let the documents of the Petitioner be examined as to genuinity, validity and if the Petitioner is found to be entitled for any compensation, the process for the same shall be undertaken by the LAC within a period of six months. If the Petitioner is to be relegated to a civil court for determination of title, the LAC shall pass orders accordingly.

¶52

Petition is disposed of with all pending applications, if any.

¶53

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

¶54

VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE

¶55

SEPTEMBER 16, 2026/MR/ck

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

W.P.(C) 13555/2026

¶58

Page 5 of 5

¶59

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 7.09.2026 17:17:22

Amin Ur Rehman v. Govt of Nct. of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amin Ur Rehman v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Broadcasting Foundation Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

Dr Manish Kamra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mursaleen Vs Lt Governor and Ors.

Maa Mundeshwari School of Medicine Private Limited & Anr. Vs National Medical Commission & Ors.

Shri Atul Aggarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Abhishek Kumar Pathak Vs Unioon of India & Ors.

Mueenzafar Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar