$~8, 57-64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 12th January, 2026 Uploaded on: 15th January, 2026 + W.P.(C) 7689/2000 DEVI RAM & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhilash Vashisht and Mr. Neeraj, Advs. for P-3 to 5, 7,9,11,13,22,25 (8077154576) versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel, DDA with Mr. Bir Inder Singh Gurm, Ms. Anmol M. Kaur, Advs. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for LAC/L&B DEPT. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Puja Kalra, SC for MCD with Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, & Mr. Viren Advs Ms. Shobhana Takiar Standing Counsel for DDA 57 + W.P.(C) 3705/2006 KISHNA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhilash Vashisht and Mr. Neeraj, Advs. for P-2. versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, SC, DDA with Mr. Bir Inder Singh Gurm, Ms. Anmol M. Kaur, Advs. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for LAC/L&B DEPT Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Puja Kalra, SC for MCD with Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, & Mr. Viren Advs 58 + W.P.(C) 9269/2007 SHANTI DEVI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhilash Vashisht and Mr. Neeraj, Advs. for P-1,4,5. versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for LAC/L&B DEPT Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel, with Mr Kuljeet Singh, Adv. for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Puja Kalra, SC for MCD with Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, & Mr. Viren Advs 59 + W.P.(C) 4591/2008 RAM NARAIN & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhilash Vashisht and Mr. Neeraj, Advs. for P-1. versus U.O.I & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for LAC/L&B DEPT Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Puja Kalra, SC for MCD with Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, & Mr. Viren Advs 60 + W.P.(C) 4593/2008 JAGMOHAN & ORS .....Petitioners Through: None. versus U.O.I .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak,Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for LAC/L&B DEPT Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Puja Kalra, SC for MCD with Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, & Mr. Viren Advs. 61 + W.P.(C) 4594/2008 RAM MEHER & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhilash Vashisht and Mr. Neeraj, Advs. for P-2 to 15, 17. versus U.O.I & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for LAC/L&B DEPT Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Mr. Karan Mishra, Mr. Aman, Advs. for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Puja Kalra, SC for MCD with Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, & Mr. Viren Advs 62 + W.P.(C) 252/2009 & CM APPL. 33558/2024 SANJEEV SIKKA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Himansh Yadav, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for LAC/L&B DEPT Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Puja Kalra, SC for MCD with Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, & Mr. Viren Advs Mr Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harshpreet Singh Chadha, Advs. for DDA. 63 + W.P.(C) 4200/2006 SAT NARAIN & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhilash Vashisht and Mr. Neeraj, Advs. versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for LAC/L&B DEPT Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Mr. Karan Mishra, Mr. Aman, Advs. for DDA. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Puja Kalra, SC for MCD with Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, & Mr. Viren Advs Ms. Shobhana Takiar, SC, with Mr Kuljeet Singh, Adv. for DDA 64 + W.P.(C) 7463/2006 NAND KISHOR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: None. versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for LAC/L&B DEPT Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel, with Mr Kuljeet Singh, Adv. for DDA (Mob: 9810962950) Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Puja Kalra, SC for MCD with Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, & Mr. Viren Advs. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present matter relates to 130 bighas, 19 biswas in the Village Samalkha (hereinafter “subject land”), Delhi. 3. The subject land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter “LAC”) by issuing a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter “Land Acquisition Act”) on 19th February, 1979. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 27th September, 1980. 4. It was originally acquired for the purpose of developing a shopping complex at Samalkha, Gurgaon Delhi Road, Delhi. However, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter “MCD”) had, in the year 1976, floated a scheme and thereafter, the layout was also approved. Approximately around 200 to 225 parties had responded to the scheme floated by the MCD and had deposited money for allotment of the plots. The MCD at that stage deposited the money towards the acquisition of the subject land with the LAC in terms of the Award No. 56 of 1986-87 dated 19th September, 1986. The Khasra numbers involved in these matters are as under: Sr. No. Case Relevant Khasra No. 1. WRIT PETITION NO. 7689/2000 KHASRA NO. 77 (4-16) OF VILLAGE SAMALKA, NEW DELHI 2. WRIT PETITION NO. 9269/2007 KHASRA NO. 15//10 (3-6), 14//14/2 (3-3), 14//16 (1-11) & 77 (4-16) OF VILLAGE SAMALKA, NEW DELHI 3. WRIT PETITION NO. 3705/2006 10 BIGHAS FALLING IN KHATA NO. 204 AND KHASRA 10/11(4-16), 12(4-16), 19(4-16),20(4-16),21/1(2-8),2112(2-8), 111114(3-14), 15(4-16) , 16(4-16), 17(4-16), 24(6-11), 25/1(0-13), 25/2(4-3), 12//4(4-0), 5(4-16), 6(4-7), 14(4-16), 14//4(4-16), 5(4-16), 6(4-16), 15111 11 (2-8), 112(2-8), 2(4-16) OF VILLAGE SAMALKA, NEW DELHI 4. WRIT PETITION NO. 4591/2008 KHASRA 14//2/1(1-00), 9(3-13), 14//2/2(0-08), 8(4-18), 14/1(2-10), 17/1(2-00), 18/1(4-0), 72(0-14) and 14//3/1(1-00) 5. WRIT PETITION NO. 4200/2008 KHATA KHATAUNI NO. 265/76 MIN AND KHASRA I 1/6 (5-14) OF VILLAGE SAMALKA, NEW DELHI 5. Initially, the acquisition was challenged by way of a civil suit being CS No.867/1977 and, thereafter, by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) 6682/2004. Further writ petitions were also filed by the villagers challenging the acquisition proceedings. On 9th February, 2009, in one such petition, being W.P.(C) 252/2009, the Court had directed that the acquisition proceedings shall be completed but the possession shall not be taken over. The said order dated 9th February, 2009 reads as under: “The aforesaid being the limited relief, it is agreed that these. petitions be disposed of in the following terms: 1.? ?The respondents can complete the process of acquisition put shall not take possession of the land in question till such time as the question of regularization is finally decided. We clarify that this order will apply only to such of the land which forms part of the plan submitted by the society and are covered by the provisional certificate. 2.? ?In case of certain lands of which possession has already been taken. naturally this order will not assist the petitioners in respect of that portion of the land 3.? ?The respondents will not carry out any demolition against the properties of the petitioners subject to the condition that the petitioners will maintain status quo in respect of title, construction, possession and user. 4. The petitioners shall file, coloured photographs of the properties showing the current status of construction, if not already filed, within one week with an advance copy to learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.” 6. A review petition, being Review Petition 140/2009, was preferred seeking review of the order dated 9th February, 2009, which was dismissed on 27th March, 2009. The orders of the Division Bench were then challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4478/2013. The said Appeal was then remanded back by the Supreme Court, vide order dated 19th July, 2023. The order of the Supreme Court reads as under: “8. It is evident that different sets of writ petitions seeking quashing of the acquisition or regularization of the unauthorized constructions and/or a direction to hand over possession of the allotted sites have been listed before different Benches at different point of time. This has resulted into issuance of somewhat contradictory directions which the authorities may find difficult to give effect to. For instance, the allottees cannot be handed over possession of the plots under the new scheme unless physical possession of the acquired property is allowed to be taken over by the appellants free from all encumbrances. Similarly, if the competent authority decides to regularize the unauthorized construction, the allottees cannot be handed over plots under the proposed scheme though they might be entitled to some alternate relief for which liberty has been granted by the High Court vide the impugned judgment. In such peculiar facts and circumstances, it appears to us that the High Court need to re-visit the issues raised in all the sets of writ petitions, referred to above, and take a holistic view in respect of the validity of the acquisition, regularization of unauthorized construction and/or the nature of some alternative relief that can be granted to the allottees under the development scheme. 9. Consequently, we allow these appeals in part; set aside the impugned orders and remit the case to the High Court for fresh adjudication of all the issues by way of a common order.” A perusal of the above, reveals that the Supreme Court was clearly of the opinion that the orders which were passed by the High Court in these matters needed to be looked at afresh as there were certain contradictions that had crept in may be due to the matters being listed before different Court. Thus, the Supreme Court had remanded the matters back to the High Court for fresh adjudication of all issues by way of a common order. 7. Considering the order passed by the Supreme Court, this Court had, on 9th April, 2024, crystalized the questions that arise in the writ petition as under: “10. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Government of NCT of Delhi is required to take a clear stand with regard to the following:- a) whether the Government intends to pursue the acquisition or release the same under Section 48 of the 1894 Act; and b) whether the unauthorized colonies in question are to be regularized.” 8. On 21st March, 2025, submissions were heard in detail and the stand of the allottees and other parties was also recorded. The Court then observed as under: “7. Thereafter, this Court vide various orders had directed different Departments to file affidavits with respect to the above questions and any other relevant aspects. Today, the stand of various authorities is summarized below: (i) On behalf of the LAC, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, ld. Counsel submits that neither the beneficiary i.e., MCD nor the land owners sought denotification of the land and so no notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act withdrawing the above-mentioned acquisitions has been issued till date. (ii) On behalf of the land owners, Mr. Parvinder Chauhan ld. Counsel submits that the owners are now residing/occupying area and the DDA has also regularized the same. According to Mr. Chauhan, the charges for the regularization are now being paid by various occupants in the said colony, to the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter ‘DDA’). (iii) On behalf of the allottees, who had originally obtained the allotment from the MCD, the grievance is that, despite the money having been deposited under MCD scheme, almost 50 years ago, no allotment or possession has been given to the said allottees. (iv) On behalf of the MCD, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, ld. Senior Counsel submits that the land is being illegally regularized by the DDA. It was the MCD which had floated the scheme. The land had been acquired, the acquisition was upheld but still the MCD was not giving the possession of the land owing to various interim orders passed by the Court. According to Mr. Poddar, the regularization by the DDA is contrary to the scheme as also the order passed on 9th February, 2009 and the subsequent orders passed in various writ petitions. 8. The above submissions reveal a rather unfortunate situation where there are five stakeholders i.e. (i) original allottees by the MCD; (ii) the land owners/ present occupants of the colony; (iii) the MCD; (iv) the DDA and (v) the LAC. 9. There is no consensus between any of the Departments herein which is causing difficulty to the other stakeholders involved. A perusal of the above extracted order passed by the Supreme Court also reveals that the Court noted the contradictory stands being taken by different stake holders. Firstly, the dispute between the MCD and the DDA requires resolution to determine whether the colony is to be regularized (if not already regularized) or whether it is to be vacated, with possession being handed over to the MCD. This issue, in the opinion of this Court, is one which needs to be resolved between these two departments immediately for effective resolution of this dispute. 10. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, for having a joint meeting with the concerned Departments as also any other stake holders, and place on record the decision taken. After perusing the said decision, further orders shall be passed by this Court.” 9. As can be seen from the above order, the matter was referred to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor for having a joint meeting with the relevant Departments as also the stakeholders, and then place the decision on record. 10. The decision has now been taken by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor and vide Notification dated 18th December, 2025, the acquisition proceedings in respect of certain khasra nos. in Village Samalkha have been withdrawn. For ready reference, the said Notification is extracted hereunder: 11. In view thereof, the grievance of the land owners whose land was acquired stands satisfied as the land acquisition proceedings themselves have been withdrawn. 12. These petitions which have been filed by the land owners are accordingly disposed of as infructuous in view of the withdrawal of the Notifications dated 19th February, 1979 under Section 4 and 27th September, 1980 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 13. Accordingly, the Award no. 56 of 1986-87 shall no longer be given effect to. 14. The writ petitions are disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE JANUARY 12, 2026 Rahul/msh W.P.(C) 7689/2000 & connected Page 1 of 2