Subhdra Devi & ORS v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi Through Its Chief Secretary & ORS

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11865/2019, CM APPL. 48624/2019 SUBHDRA DEVI & ORS .....Petitioners Through:

None.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS .....Respondents Through:

Ms. Shobhana Takiar, SC with Mr. Kuljeet Singh and Mr. Prateek Dhir, Advocates for DDA.

Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank Kumar and Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocates for R-2.

Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh and Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Advocates for R-1.

Ms. Mrinalini Sen, SC with Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026 1.

There is no appearance on behalf of Petitioners. Nonetheless, with the assistance rendered by the government counsels, the Court has perused the record.

2.

The Petitioners claim ownership of land bearing Khasra No. 92 (4-0), situated in the revenue estate of Village Haiderpur, Delhi. The said land was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings initiated by a notification dated The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

24th October, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,1 followed by a declaration dated 6th December, 1966 under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. The acquisition proceedings culminated in an Award dated 18th July, 1980, pursuant to which the land vested in Respondent No. 3. 3.

The Petitioners challenged the aforesaid acquisition proceedings by filing W.P.(C) No. 8743/2014, titled Bishan Singh & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.2 By order dated 9th February, 2015, this Court declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject land were deemed to have lapsed. 4.

The Delhi Development Authority3 preferred Civil Appeal No. 8369/2016 before the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the DDA to take recourse under the provisions of the 2013 Act, within a period of one year. 5.

Since no steps were taken by the Respondents to correct the revenue records despite representations made by the Petitioners, the present writ petition was filed seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs: "a) A direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ thereby directing the Respondents to release the land and Re-Enter the name of the lawful owners i.e. Petitioners in the revenue record pertaining to land measuring 01 bigha and 07 Biswas of the land comprised in Khasra No.92 Min. Village Haiderpur, Delhi, b) Award the costs of present proceedings in favour of Petitioners and against the Respondent and;"

6.

Subsequently, on an application being M.A. D.No. 411/2023 filed by 1 "the 1894 Act"

2 "the 2013 Act"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the DDA in Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors., the judgment dated 9th February, 2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 8743/2014 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to this Court for fresh consideration. Pursuant thereto, W.P.(C) No. 8743/2014 has been restored to the file of this Court and is presently listed for hearing on 2nd March, 2026. 7.

In view of the aforesaid developments, the very premise on which the Petitioners seek re-entry of their names in the revenue records does not survive for consideration at this stage 8.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, with liberty to the Petitioners to avail of appropriate remedies in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of W.P.(C) No. 8743/2014.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 27, 2026 nk 3 "DDA"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.