$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 18th December, 2025 Date of uploading: 19th December, 2025 + W.P.(C) 6594/2014 RAVI KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY(S) (i) MOHD. JUNAID SIDDIQUI S/O JUBAIR SIDDIQUI R/O 195, KHAIR NAGAR BAZAR, MEERUT, U.P. (ii) MOHD. YAMEEN S/O MR. MEHMOOD KHAN, R/O 196, KHAIR NAGAR BAZAR, MEERUT, U.P. .....PETITIONER Through: Mr. Adnan Siddiqui, Mr. Lakshay Laroiya, Advocates. Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002. ……. RESPONDENT NO.1 2. THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, RAJ NIWAS, RAJ PUR ROAD, DELHI-110054. …… RESPONDENT NO.2 3. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) DC OFFICE, OLD MB ROAD, SAKET, NEW DELHI. ….. RESPONDENT NO.3 4. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH VICE CHAIRMAN, INA, VIKAS SADAN, NEW DELHI. .....RESPONDENT NO.4 Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs. K. Kaomudi Kiran, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advocates for R-1, R-2 and R-3 Ms. Malvika Kapila Kalra, Ms. Harbani Shinh, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Ms. Apoorva Jain, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J. 1. In M.A. No. - Diary No. 40310/2022 in R.P.(C). No. 1017/2017 titled as Delhi Development Authority v. Ravi Kumar Gupta and others, the Apex Court has passed following order on 23rd October, 2024:- “1. xxxxxx 2. xxxxxx 3. Miscellaneous Applications for recall of orders and Review Petition (C) No.1017/2017 are allowed, and order dated 29.11.2016 is recalled. 4. Since the Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court on the basis of a General Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2002, which was obviously executed much after the commencement of the land acquisition process, the impugned judgments of the High Court are liable to be set aside. 5. These matters fall within the category of cases remanded to the High Court in group `E’ of the three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. BSK Realtors LLP & Anr., reported in (2024) 7 SCC 370. The instant matters are also required to be remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication. Ordered accordingly. 6. In the interest of justice, the respondent(s) is/are permitted to amend the petitions before the High Court, so as to bring on record the title documents to establish his entitlement for compensation. Such a plea shall be determined by the High Court after hearing both the sides as per its own merits.” 2. This is how the matter is being taken up for hearing before this Court. 3. The counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the affidavit dated 24th January, 2015 of the petitioner. The said affidavit reads thus:- “1. That by way of a registered sale deed dated 14.10.1987, I had purchased the land comprised of Khasra No.507 Min (1-06) measuring 1 bigha 6 biswas situated at Village Madanpur Khadar, Delhi and was acquired vide award no.20/92-93 dated 19.06.1992 and possession thereof was taken 03.12.2012 without paying the compensation to the deponent or any other person and/or depositing in the court. 2. That Mohd. Junaid Siddiqui son of Jubair Siddiqui and Mohd. Yameen son of Shri Mehmood Khan are my duly constituted attorneys and I had authorized them to file the above petition. I ratify and confirm all the acts, deeds and things done or caused to be done by my abovenamed attorneys and the same shall be binding upon in all respects and shall take effect as if the same were done or caused to be done by me in person.” 4. From the order of the Apex Court referred to above dated 23rd October, 2024 and the contents of the affidavit dated 24th January, 2025 filed by the petitioner, which is reproduced hereinabove, it is quite apparent that the petitioner himself has admitted about the possession being taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector/the acquiring body. 5. Once it is established from the aforesaid admitted fact that the petitioner has already lost possession, the challenge to the acquisition no longer survives, as the acquisition stands concluded. 6. Apart from the above, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal: (2020) 8 SCC 129, the twin conditions required to be satisfied for declaring the lapsing of an acquisition, viz. non-payment of compensation and failure to take possession post the award. In the present case, one of the conditions of possession being taken over by the acquiring body can be inferred. That being so, the contention that the acquisition is liable to be quashed and set aside cannot be accepted. 7. As regards the claim for compensation, from the affidavit of the respondent/DDA, it is noticed that compensation in the sum of Rs. 63,20,244.15/- was remitted vide Cheque No. 767216 dated 19tth August, 2014 for the land acquired from village Madanpur Khadar, the said amount is deposited in this Court. 8. Apart from above, it is claimed that the compensation was sent to the Reference Court on 28th October, 2014. Para 4A of the counter affidavit of the respondent no.3/Land Acquisition Collector (‘LAC’) dated 25th November, 2014 reads thus: “4A. That it is submitted that the lands of village Madan Pur Khadar were notified vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 23.6.1989 which was followed by Notification under Section 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated. That the then Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award bearing No. 20/92-93 dated 19.6.92 and the possession of the land falling in khasra numbers was taken on 3.12.2012 after preparing Possession Proceeding on the spot and was handed over to the beneficiary department i.e. DDA immediately. The compensation of the same was also sent to the Reference Court on 28.10.2014 as there was an apportionment dispute.” 9. As such, perhaps there are two sets of compensation deposited, one in this Court, and another in the Reference Court, as could be inferred from the aforesaid affidavits. 10. Once possession stood vested in the respondents, the aspect of compensation, if appreciated, shows that the aforesaid pleadings, being controverted, establishes that the compensation was deposited in this Court so also with the Land Acquisition Collector. 11. Post award, once the compensation is deposited and the petitioner has lost the possession, the only option left with the petitioner is to seek release of the compensation from the Land Acquisition Collector. Such release of compensation, if the petitioner is able to establish his title, can be ordered by the Land Acquisition Collector, and in case the amount is sought, the same can be requisitioned from the acquiring body. In case of dispute with regard to the apportionment, Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would apply, and a reference with regard to the apportionment can be made to the Civil Court in accordance with the statutory mandate provided thereunder. 12. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount of compensation offered, being less than that to which he is entitled in law, it is always open for such landowner, like the petitioner, to seek enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by lodging a reference to that effect before the Land Acquisition Collector, who in turn, forwards the same to the competent Civil Court. 13. Keeping such option legally open to the petitioner, we see no reason to cause interference in our extraordinary jurisdiction. That being so, the writ petition stands dismissed. 14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 15. A copy of this Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE (JUDGE) ANISH DAYAL (JUDGE) DECEMBER 18, 2025/pr/ab/ss W.P.(C) 6594/2014 Page 1 of 7