Girish Chhabra vs Lt. Governor Delhi - Land Acquisition Case

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 18, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Girish Chhabra vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Ors on 23 March, 2026

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd March, 2026
Uploaded on: 25th March, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 2759/2014
GIRISH CHHABRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Setu Niket & Ms. Esha
Mazumdar, Advs
versus

                               LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS          .....Respondents
                                            Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with
                                                      Mr. Mohd. Sueb Akhtar, Advs.
                               CORAM:
                               JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                               JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
                      Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1.       This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

1. The present writ petition was filed challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land being Khasra Nos. 60/22/1 (17 biswas) and 60/22/2 (4 biswas) situated in village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi, and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 12th September, 2014, in the following terms:-

"12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents also sought to argue that the proviso would
have to be considered even in cases which clearly fall within
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because there is a colon which
separates the main part of Section 24(2) and the proviso. It
was contended that the proviso, therefore, has to be read as
part of Section 24(2) and not as a proviso. We are afraid
that this argument is also not available t.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA NEGI W.P.(C) 2759/2014 Page 1 of 9 Signing Date:25.03.2026 18:44:04
o the respondents in view of the clear conclusion of law set
out by the Supreme Court in the case of Sree Balaji Nagar
(supra). Even otherwise, the argument is merely to be stated
to be rejected.

1. In the present case although the physical possession of the land in question has been taken, compensation has not been paid. In view of the provisions of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted in the Supreme Court decisions cited above, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land would be deemed to have lapsed. It is, accordingly, declared that the subject acquisition has lapsed in terms of the deeming provision of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and the respondents are not entitled in law to retain possession of the subject land."
2. As can be seen from the above judgment, the acquisition of the subject land was declared to have lapsed in view of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter "the 2013 Act‟). It was also held that the Respondents were not entitled to retain possession of the subject land.

1. This judgment was challenged by the DDA before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8497 of 2016. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 31st August, 2016 on the ground that the issue raised by DDA is covered against it in Civil Appeal No. 8477/2016 titled Delhi Development Authority vs. Kusham Jain. The order dated 31st August, 2016 passed by the Supreme Court reads as under:-

" Leave granted.

The issue, in principle, is covered against the appellant
by judgment in Civil Appeal No. 8477 of 2016 arising out of
Special Leave Petition(C) No. 8467 of 2015.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA NEGI W.P.(C) 2759/2014 Page 2 of 9 Signing Date:25.03.2026 18:44:04
This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the
appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty
granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of
the acquisition proceedings afresh.

We make it clear that in case no fresh acquisition
proceedings are initiated within the said period of one year
from today by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of
the Act, the appellant, if in possession, shall return the
physical possession of the land to the original land owner.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
5. As can be seen from the above order, in the peculiar facts of this case,
the DDA was given a period of one year to exercise liberty under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings, failing
which the physical possession of the subject land was to be returned to the
landowner i.e., the Petitioner.

1.   A review application being Review Petition (Civil) Diary No.
                     20588/2019 was filed by the DDA against the order dated 31st August, 2016,
                     which was dismissed vide order dated 25th July, 2019.
   

2.   Thereafter, a Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 13254/2023 was
                     filed by the DDA in the above review petition, wherein the Supreme Court
                     vide order dated 11th December, 2024, observed that the prayer in the
                     application was clearly covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in
                     Government of NCT of Delhi through its [Secretary, Land and Building
                     Department & Anr. vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150657218/), (2024) 7 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA NEGI                      W.P.(C) 2759/2014                                                               Page 3 of 9 Signing Date:25.03.2026 18:44:04 315.
   

3.   The Supreme Court vide order dated 11th December, 2024, clarified
                     that, in terms of paragraph 128(a) of the Judgment in [K.L. Rathi Steels](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150657218/) (Supra), extension of one year is granted from 11th December 2024, for
                     completion of the acquisition proceedings. The relevant portion of [the said
                     judgment](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150657218/) is set out below:
   

"1. Delay condoned, and leave granted.

1. The applications for substitution are allowed, subject
   to all just exceptions.

2. Learned senior counsel for the parties are ad idem
   that the issue involved in the instant case squarely falls
   within the ambit of our decision in Government of NCT
   of Delhi through its Secretary, Land and Building
   Department & another vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and
   others, (2024) 7 SCC 315.

3. Consequently, the respondents-land owners shall be
   entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair
   Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
   Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in
   accordance with the procedure as explained in
   paragraph 128 of K.L. Rathi (supra), which reads as
   follows:

"128. Under the circumstances, dismissal of the
RPS and miscellaneous applications would have
been logical and we could have ended our judgment
hereby ordering so. However, there is something
more of a balancing act that needs to be done
having regard to the disclosures that were made in
course of progress of other proceedings before us,
which followed immediately after judgment on this
set of RPs and miscellaneous applications was Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA NEGI W.P.(C) 2759/2014 Page 4 of 9 Signing Date:25.03.2026 18:44:04 reserved. Such other proceedings arose out of
appeals carried from orders of the High Court
declaring land acquisition proceedings as lapsed
based on the decision in Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) as distinguished from RPs and
miscellaneous applications of the nature under
consideration. Since all such proceedings have
more or less a common genesis and have followed
similar trajectory, it would be eminently desirable
to find a solution that benefits all. We may hasten to
add here that the exercise of inherent powers
conferred on this Court by Article 142, in such
circumstances, is not just inevitable but also pivotal
for disposal of the matters at hand, given their
impact on public interest at large as well as to
secure uniformity and consistency in our decisions;
hence, we consider it expedient to pass such orders
or directions for ensuring complete justice in the
matters under consideration before us.
Notwithstanding our discussion on the reference
which was necessitated to answer the question of
law on which there was a disagreement between the
Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench, taking an
overall and holistic view of the matter and in the
light of the larger public interest that is involved,
in each of the RPs and miscellaneous applications
that have been dealt with by this judgment (except
those remanded to the High Court and those de-
tagged for separate listing infra), we issue the
following directions:

a)The time limit for initiation of fresh
acquisition proceedings in terms of the
provisions contained in section 24(2) of the
2013 Act is extended by a year starting from
01st August, 2024 whereupon compensation to
the affected landowners may be paid in
accordance with law, failing which Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA NEGI W.P.(C) 2759/2014 Page 5 of 9 Signing Date:25.03.2026 18:44:04 consequences, also as per law, shall follow;

b)The parties shall maintain status quo
regarding possession, change of land use and
creation of third-party rights till fresh
acquisition proceedings, as directed above, are
completed;

c) Since the landowners are not primarily
dependent upon the subject lands as their
source of sustenance and most of these lands
were/are under use for other than agricultural
purposes, we deem it appropriate to invoke our
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
and dispense with the compliance of Chapters
II and III of the 2013 Act whereunder it is
essential to prepare a Social Impact Assessment
Study Report and/or to develop alternative
multi-crop irrigated agricultural land. We do so
to ensure that timeline of one year extended at

(a) above to complete the acquisition process
can be adhered to by the appellants and the
GNCTD, which would also likely be beneficial
to the expropriated landowners;

d) Similarly, compliance with sections 13, 14, 16 to 20 of the 2013 Act can be dispensed with
as the subject-lands are predominantly
urban/semi-urban in nature and had earlier
been acquired for public purposes of
paramount importance. In order to simplify the
compliance of direction at (a) above, it is
further directed that every Notification issued
under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act in this batch
of cases, shall be treated as Preliminary
Notification within the meaning of section 11 of
the 2013 Act, and shall be deemed to have been
published as on 01st January, 2014;
Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA NEGI W.P.(C) 2759/2014 Page 6 of 9 Signing Date:25.03.2026 18:44:04
e) The Collector shall provide hearing of
objections as per section 15 of the 2013 Act
without insisting for any Social Impact
Assessment Report and shall, thereafter,
proceed to take necessary steps as per the
procedure contemplated under section 21 onwards of Chapter-IV of 2013 Act, save and
except where compliance of any provision has
been expressly or impliedly dispensed with;

f) The landowners may submit their objections
within a period of four weeks from the date of
pronouncement of this order. Such objections
shall not question the legality of the acquisition
process and shall be limited only to clauses (a)
and (b) of section 15(1) of the 2013 Act;

g) The Collector shall publish a public notice
on his website and in one English and one
vernacular newspapers, within two weeks of
expiry of the period of four weeks granted under
direction (f) above;

h) The Collector shall, thereafter, pass an
award as early as possible but not exceeding six
months, regardless of the maximum period of
twelve months contemplated under section 25 of
the 2013 Act. The market value of the land shall
be assessed as on 01st January, 2014 and the
compensation shall be awarded along with all
other monetary benefits in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act except the claim like
rehabilitation etc.;

i) The Collector shall consider all the
parameters prescribed under section 28 of the
2013 Act for determining the compensation for Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA NEGI W.P.(C) 2759/2014 Page 7 of 9 Signing Date:25.03.2026 18:44:04 the acquired land. Similarly, the Collector shall
determine the market value of the building or
assets attached with the land in accordance
with section 29 and shall further award
solatium in accordance with section 30 of the
2013 Act;

j) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, since it is difficult to reverse the clock
back, the compliance of Chapter (V) pertaining
to "Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award" is
hereby dispensed with;and

k) The expropriated landowners shall be
entitled to seek reference for enhancement of
compensation in accordance with Chapter-VIII
of the 2013 Act.
5. It is clarified that the extension of one year, as
granted to the Authorities for completion of acquisition
in sub-para (a) reproduced above, will commence from
the date of this order.

1. The Civil Appeal and Miscellaneous Applications
   are, accordingly, disposed of.

2. As a result, pending interlocutory applications, if
   any, also stand disposed of."

3.   The submission of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that some
                     confusion was created due to a covering letter dated 10th January, 2025 issued
                     by the Registry of the Supreme Court, referring to the order dated 11th
                     December, 2024, passed in Civil Appeal No. 366/2025 that was mentioned
                     incorrectly to be arising from the present petition.
   

4.  This issue was also raised before this Court on 24th February 2025, Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA NEGI                      W.P.(C) 2759/2014                                                        Page 8 of 9 Signing Date:25.03.2026 18:44:04 wherein the ld. Counsels were asked to examine the matter.
   

5.  Both the ld. Counsels have made their submissions today. After
                     perusing the orders, it is clear that the present writ petition would no longer
                     survive as, initially, vide order dated 31st August, 2016 passed by the Supreme
                     Court, one year's time was given for issuance of a fresh notification of
                     acquisition. Thereafter, again, on 11th December 2024, one year was granted
                     for completing the acquisition proceedings. Ld. Counsel for the LAC has
                     confirmed that no acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the DDA or
                     by the LAC in respect of the subject land.
   

6.  Under such circumstances, no further orders are called for. The petition,
                     in fact, would stand disposed of in terms of the orders passed by the Supreme
                     Court on 31st August, 2016 read with 11th December, 2024.
   

7.   The Petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if
                     any, are also disposed of.
   

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE

                                                                                   MADHU JAIN
                                                                                     JUDGE
                      MARCH 23, 2026/prg/msh Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA NEGI                      W.P.(C) 2759/2014                                                          Page 9 of 9 Signing Date:25.03.2026 18:44:04