Allowed

Daya Nand Maan & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Sept 2026W.P.(C)/7407/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition concerning an application for an alternative plot made 46 days after the prescribed period. Although the Department had processed the application for years, the hearing notice on limitation was addressed to the deceased applicant and never reached his legal heirs. The Court set aside the time-barred rejection, directed a personal hearing and reconsideration under the applicable Scheme, and preserved the claim’s original seniority if recommended. It did not direct allotment.

What did the court decide?

The time-barred rejection dated 18 October 2018 is set aside. The application must be placed before the competent Committee for consideration under the applicable Scheme, after a personal hearing, and a final decision must be made within twelve weeks; no allotment is directed.

Daya Nand Maan & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010479242021

¶4

- W.P.(C) 7407/2022

¶5

DAYA NAND MAAN & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Mr. Harpreet Singh and Mr. Utkarsh Pandey, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, SC, DDA with Ms. Latika Malhotra & Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advs. For DDA.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 17.09.2026

¶12

Late Mr. Om Prakash was the recorded owner of land in Village Pehlad Pur Banger, which was acquired under Award No. 14/2002-03. He received compensation on 26^th July, 2002. The application for allotment of an alternative plot was acknowledged as received by the Land & Building Department [“the Department”], GNCTD on 10^th September, 2003.

¶13

The Petitioners contend that Om Prakash had approached the Department and submitted the application in March/April 2003, though it was formally registered only on 10^th September, 2003. That factual issue need not detain us. In the absence of any contemporaneous acknowledgment of an earlier application, the matter may, therefore, be examined by treating 10^th September, 2003 as the date of application. Even on that basis, the delay was only 46 days beyond the stipulated period of one year from the date of receipt of compensation.

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

W.P.(C) 7407/2022

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2026 at 11:12:47

¶18

What is significant is the manner in which the Department itself dealt with the application. At that stage, it was not rejected as belated. Instead, on 28^th September, 2004, Om Prakash was asked to furnish documents, including the payment certificate and revenue record, which he subsequently supplied. The application continued to be processed by the Department and was placed before the Recommendation Committee from time to time. After Om Prakash died on 2^nd June, 2014, the Petitioners, as his legal heirs, continued to pursue the claim. On 25^th May, 2015, the Department addressed Daya Nand, Petitioner No. 1, and sought further documents in relation to the same claim.

¶19

The issue of delay arose only much later. In January 2018, while examining the file, the Department noticed the date of receipt of compensation and the date of the application. The matter was not rejected at that stage. Instead, it was considered necessary to afford the applicant a personal hearing to clarify the issue of limitation. Pursuant to the office noting dated 24^th January, 2018, a personal-hearing notice dated 1^st February, 2018 was issued, calling upon the applicant to appear before the Recommendation Committee and explain why the application should not be dismissed as time-barred.

¶20

The notice dated 1^st February, 2018 was, however, addressed to Om Prakash, although he had died nearly four years earlier and the Department had already addressed correspondence concerning the claim to his son, Daya Nand. The notice was returned undelivered with the remark “addressee expired”. On 26^th February, 2018, the Recommendation Committee took note of this fact and decided to obtain a report regarding the legal heirs before taking a final decision.

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

W.P.(C) 7407/2022

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2026 at 11:12:47

¶25

The record does not indicate that the Petitioners were thereafter called upon to explain the delay or afforded any further hearing. When the matter next came before the Recommendation Committee on 18^th October, 2018, it noted that compensation had been received on 26^th July, 2002 and that the application had been filed on 10^th September, 2003. Proceeding on those dates, the Committee rejected the claim as time-barred. The Petitioners learnt of the decision only from an RTI response dated 4^th October, 2019.

¶26

The Petitioners submit that the application could not have been rejected merely by comparing the date of receipt of compensation with the date of its formal registration. They contend that Om Prakash had approached the Department earlier and that the delay, if computed from the date of formal registration, was short. They further rely on the Department’s conduct in processing the application over several years, repeatedly calling for documents, and ultimately deciding to afford the applicant a hearing on the question of delay. The grievance is that the Petitioners were never afforded that hearing because the notice was addressed to Om Prakash after his death, even though Daya Nand had already been pursuing the claim before the Department and was corresponding with it.

¶27

The Respondents submit that the application was formally received on 10^th September, 2003, whereas compensation had been received on 26^th July, 2002, and was therefore beyond the one-year period prescribed under the Scheme. Reliance is placed on Delhi Administration Land & Building v. Kanwar Sain Goel¹ and Ramanand v. Union of India & Ors.² to contend that the Scheme confers no vested right to an alternative allotment and that

¶28

1 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4030.

¶29

2 1993 SCC OnLine Del 397.

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

W.P.(C) 7407/2022

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2026 at 11:12:47

¶34

an applicant must satisfy its prescribed conditions before the claim can be considered. The Counter Affidavit filed by GNCTD proceeds on this basis. 9. In Kanwar Sain Goel , the Division Bench, while setting out the conditions governing eligibility under the policy, noticed that the application was required to be filed within one year from the date of receipt of compensation. The question of delay in making an application was not, however, in issue in that case. The claimants there were found ineligible as they were not the recorded owners of the acquired land on the date of the Section 4 notification. The effect of delay in making an application was considered by the Division Bench in GNCTD v. Poonam Gupta³ , where, while dealing with applications made beyond the time prescribed in public notices, the Court held that such time limit could not be treated as final and conclusive. The Court further held that an application could be rejected as time-barred only where the delay was found not to have been satisfactorily explained. Delays ranging from 21 days to four months were held not to be inordinate in the facts of those cases. The same approach was adopted in GNCTD v. Dharam Pal⁴ , where the Division Bench observed that the prescribed period appeared to be directory and held that a delay of about 30 days was negligible.

¶35

The Department itself considered it necessary to afford the applicant a personal hearing before taking a view on the issue of delay. The Petitioners were not afforded that hearing because the notice was addressed to Om Prakash, although he had died nearly four years earlier and the Department had, by then, addressed correspondence concerning the claim to Daya Nand.

¶36

3 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13854.

¶37

4 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6558.

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

W.P.(C) 7407/2022

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2026 at 11:12:47

¶42

The notice was returned undelivered with the remark “addressee expired”. On 26^th February, 2018, the Recommendation Committee took note of the fact that none had appeared and that the notice had been returned undelivered. It accordingly decided to obtain a report regarding the legal heirs before taking a final decision. Having taken that course, the Committee could not thereafter reject the application as time-barred without first affording the Petitioners an opportunity to explain the delay.

¶43

We are, therefore, unable to sustain the decision dated 18^th October, 2018. In the facts of the present case, and having regard to the principles laid down in Dharam Pal and Renu Aggarwal , the delay of 46 days, by itself, could not defeat the Petitioners’ claim from being considered on its merits. 12. The decision of the Recommendation Committee dated 18^th October, 2018, insofar as it concerns the application of late Mr. Om Prakash, is accordingly set aside. The Respondents shall place the application before the competent Committee for consideration of the remaining requirements under the applicable Scheme. The application shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it was received on 10^th September, 2003. Before taking a fresh decision, the Committee shall afford the Petitioners a personal hearing.

¶44

We clarify that this order does not direct allotment of an alternative plot. In Amolak Raj v. Union of India & Ors.⁵ , the Supreme Court, while approving the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramanand , noted that a person whose land has been acquired has no absolute or vested right to claim allotment of an alternative plot as a matter of right. The Supreme Court further observed that, where the Scheme provides for allotment of an alternative plot, the claim is to be considered in accordance with the Scheme

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

W.P.(C) 7407/2022

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2026 at 11:12:47

¶49

and the applicable policy. The present order, therefore, only requires the Respondents to reconsider the Petitioners’ application in accordance with the applicable Scheme. If the Petitioners are otherwise found eligible and their application is recommended, the same shall retain the seniority to which it would have been entitled when it was originally considered. A final decision shall be taken within twelve weeks from today.

¶50

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶51

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶52

SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/ng

¶53

5 MANU/SC/1147/2002.

¶54

Page 6 of 6

¶55

W.P.(C) 7407/2022

¶56

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2026 at 11:12:47

Daya Nand Maan & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Nand Maan & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Hanuman Traders Vs Union of India & Anr.

Alok Kumar Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Katyani Exports through Its Proprietor Sh. Ajay Singh Gautam Vs Union of India and Ors.

Divine Creations through Its Partner Sh. Ajay Singh Gautam Vs Union of India and Ors.

Devinder Kumar & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

M/S Carnival Greens Vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee (Dpcc) & Ors.

Sanskriti Exim Private Limited Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Dzu and Ors.

Saraswati Printers Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Dzu and Ors.