Devender vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4991 Del

Delhi High Court

Devender vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 25 September, 2025

                          $~50
                          *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                              Date of decision: 25th September, 2025
                          +       W.P.(C) 14477/2025 & CM APPL. 59276/2025, CM APPL.
                                  59277/2025
                                  DEVENDER                                                .....Petitioner
                                                     Through:        Ms. Swati Rathi, Mr. Rohit Boora,
                                                                     Mr. Chetishtha Malik, Mr. Sachin
                                                                     Aanad, Ms. Sonam, Ms. Rakhi
                                                                     Budhiraza, Ms. Priyadarshani,
                                                                     Advocates
                                                            versus
                                  THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.         .....Respondents
                                               Through: Mr. Harshit Chopra, Adv. for
                                                         Respondent no.2/MCD with Mr.
                                                         Vijay-AD Horticulture, Rohini
                                                         Zone, MCD and Ramesh Dabas,
                                                         JSA, Rohini Zone, MCD
                                                         Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
                                                         Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K.
                                                         Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar
                                                         Jha, Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Mr.
                                                         Divakar Kapil, Advocates for
                                                         respondents no. 3 and 4.
                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

                                                    JUDGMENT (ORAL)

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The prayer in petition reads as under:-

"a. To direct the Respondents toreturn the ancestral property of the petitioner i.e. land of Khasra. No.-568, (2-07) of village Sultan PurMajra, North-Dest, Delhi to the petitioner in its original form in the interest of Justice, or b. To direct the Respondents to award the compensation as per the current rate to the petitioner for the said land/property which has been illegally been possessed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in the interest of justice."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the ancestors of the petitioner were the owners of the land in question, as could be inferred from paragraph 4 of the writ petition.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that Section 4 and Section 6 notifications in relation to the said land were issued on 2nd March, 1977 and 10th April, 1978, respectively.

5. According to petitioner, post the issuance of the aforesaid notifications neither there exists any award nor the compensation was paid, which has prompted the petitioner to apply under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 'RTI Act').

6. According to petitioner, there is no mention as to the date of award or the date on which the payment of compensation was made to the petitioner. As such, it is his case that he has reasons to believe that in past, there was no award in relation to land in question and as such neither the compensation is paid nor the revenue entries are changed as the said entries even today stand in the name of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation or alternatively he is entitled to return of the land.

8. As against above, Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Land Acquisition Collector ('LAC') and acquiring body-Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD'), object to the maintainability of the petition at such a belated stage. According to respective counsels, not only do the pleadings in the petition depicts that the petitioner claims to be have had the knowledge of Section 4 and Section 6 notifications of 1977 and 1978, the fact remains that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that the land in question was developed by the MCD and as of today, there exists a public park, i.e., Parshuram Park, Raj Park, Sultanpur, Delhi. As such, it is claimed that the petition not only suffers from delay and laches, but also the same does not reflect any right in the petitioner to claim in the least, compensation.

9. We have appreciated the rival claims.

10. The issuance of notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 on 2nd March, 1977 and 10th April, 1978 can be inferred out of the pleadings of the petitioner.

11. Subsequent thereto, it is the petitioner's case that for the first time, he applied under RTI Act on 10th October, 2018, as he was not supplied with the copy of the award or any statement about the payment of compensation. The petitioner himself has admitted in

the petition that he has discovered in 2018 that there exist the public parks, i.e., Parshuram Park and Raj Park.

12. If we consider the aforesaid pleadings of the petitioner in the light of the following factual matrix, it could be inferred that petitioner is trying to take the advantage of the non-availability of the documents.

13. In the affidavit in support of the petition, the petitioner claims that he is about 54 years of age. In 1977, as such he was of the age of seven years and during that period his father, uncle, his grandfather who are narrated to be owners, as reflected in the pleadings in paragraph 4, were aware about the existence of acquisition proceedings.

14. Even the Evidence Act presupposes and presumes the existence of official records. Merely because in 2018, the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of award or that of the receipt and payment of compensation does not by itself confer any legitimate right or a locus upon the petitioner to question the acquisition.

15. The petitioner perhaps is trying to demonstrate before the Court that his land is illegally taken over by the respondent. If we consider the nature of development, i.e. the development of public parks or the land allegedly owned by the ancestors of the petitioner, it is evident that the land underwent development for a substantial period at the behest of the public authority. As such, the petitioner, in such an eventuality, cannot claim that he had no knowledge about such development.