Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd April, 2026
RAJENDER SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Sharma with Ms. Mrinalini Khatri and Mr. Madhukant Jha Advs.
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak standing Counsel with Mr. Kamlesh Kumar
LAC/ADM/North -East with Mr. Ganga Bishan NT/North -East, Mr. Himanshu Srivastava SO Central -
North, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd Sueb Akhtar Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking, inter alia, directions to the concerned Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter “LAC”) to refer the applications filed by the Petitioner for enhancement of compensation to the concerned Reference Court.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner’s land bearing Khasra No. 1/422 was acquired and a notice under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 12th April, 2006, followed by a Declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 22nd May,
2006. Thereafter, the Award bearing no. 2/2007-08 (North-East) was passed on 31st December, 2007. The Petitioner had filed objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the compensation amount on 28th February, 2008.
4. While the reference which was made to the ld. ADJ remained pending, the market value of the land was enhanced to Rs. 21,920/- per sq. mtr. in a similar matter and in respect thereof the certified copy of the Award was also prepared. The Petitioner then moved an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of his compensation which was to be considered by the LAC. However, the reference petition qua the Petitioner was dismissed on 29th March, 2016.
5. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said dismissal filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 4286/2016 titled Rajender Sharma v. Union of India & Anr. Parallelly, the Reference Court had again enhanced the compensation amount in another judgment to Rs.48,000/-. In the said writ petition considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Court passed an order dated 20th May, 2019 wherein it was directed as under:
6. As can be seen from the above, six weeks’ time was given for disposal of the Petitioner’s application filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Petitioner had to again approach the LAC by way of fresh applications. However, no action was taken by the LAC. This led to filing of a further writ petition being W.P.(C) 12187/2024 titled Rajender Sharma v. Union of India Through Land Acquisition Collector which was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 30th September, 2024. The said order reads as under:
2. The solitary grievance of the writ petitioner is with respect to the non-consideration and disposal of its application under Sections 18 and 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that subject to verification of all facts and contentions on merits being open, the said application shall be duly examined and an appropriate order disposing of the same passed in accordance with law. He further submits that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed with due expedition and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. The statement so made is recorded and accepted.”
4. The writ petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.” In the above order, the Court recorded the statement of the ld. Counsel for the LAC that the application seeking reference shall be disposed of within eight weeks.
7. In respect of this order the Petitioner is running from pillar to post to have the same given effect to and implemented by the LAC. On the last date i.e., 13th April, 2026, the Court had considered the matter and it was observed that the conduct of the concerned officer at the office of LAC being one Mr. Himanshu Srivastava, was completely unbecoming of an office holding a public office. This had led the Petitioner to undergo a gruelling process before the LAC and file writ petitions to seek some relief. Accordingly, the Court had held that strict action would be liable to be taken and had directed the said officer to be present before the Court and also file a personal affidavit explaining his conduct by the next date. The relevant portion of the Court's observations are as under:
8. Today, Mr. Srivastava is physically present in Court.
9. Mr. Pathak, ld. counsel for the Respondent submits that the order which was to be passed within 8 weeks, as directed by the order dated 30th September, 2024 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 12187/2024, has still not been passed.
10. Both the applications under Section 18 and Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter “the Act”) continue to remain pending with the LAC for all these years.
11. The Petitioner had filed two writ petitions, one being W.P.(C) 4286/2016, wherein directions were given vide order dated 20th May, 2019 to the LAC, Shahdara to refer the application under Section 28A of the Act to the Court of Additional District Judge, Shahdara, however, the same has not been done till date even after about 7 years.
12. Again, in W.P.(C) 12187/2024, further directions were given vide order dated 30th September, 2024. It is submitted by Mr. Pathak, ld. Counsel for LAC that even this order has not been complied with till date.
13. On behalf of Mr. Srivastava, Mr. Pathak, ld. Counsel submits that there was some appeal which was pending, and it still remains pending, due to which the orders of this Court could not be complied with.
14. This is a completely unacceptable explanation. If there is any appeal pending, it is for the concerned District Judge to take the same into account and not for the LAC to continue to defy the orders of this Court.
15. The concerned LAC has issued multiple notices for hearing but still it has failed to pass the orders as directed by this Court.
16. As of today, the matter is stated to have been now transferred to the North-East district of LAC. However, at the relevant point in time Mr. Srivastava was working in the office of the concerned jurisdictional LAC. It is under these circumstances that Mr. Srivastava was directed to be personally present today.
17. On the last date i.e., 13th April, 2026 an opportunity was also given to him to file a personal affidavit explaining his conduct, which has not been availed of and no affidavit has been placed on record. Mr. Pathak, ld. Counsel submits that the affidavit is ready, however, he seeks further time to file the same. In view of the above, the request for further time is a completely unreasonable request.
18. In the opinion of this Court, the acquisition in this case took place way back in 2007 and till date even the reference for enhancement of compensation has not been made to the concerned ld. ADJ. Almost 20 years have passed now without any compensation having been paid to the Petitioner.
19. After having seen the entire record, this Court is of the view that the manner in which the Court orders have completely been defied by the LAC and its officers is not condonable. Accordingly, the following directions are issued: i. The concerned LAC shall pass the order in terms of the previous orders dated 20th May, 2019 and 30th September, 2024 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions mentioned above. ii. The said order shall also be now passed by 20th May, 2026. iii. For the conduct of Mr. Srivastava for repeatedly calling the Petitioner and the LAC not passing any orders despite express directions from this Court, costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- are imposed. The same are liable to be paid in the following manner: (a) Rs. 50,000/- shall be borne personally by Mr. Srivastava to be paid to the Petitioner within 2 weeks. (b) The LAC office shall pay a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Petitioner within 2 weeks.
20. In order to enable the passing of the order in terms of today’s direction, the Petitioner may appear before the concerned LAC whose name and address shall be communicated today itself to the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner by Mr. Pathak. ld. Counsel for LAC.
21. After hearing the Petitioner, appropriate orders in both the applications under Section 18 and Section 28A of the Act shall be passed by the LAC.
22. The petition is disposed of along with pending application, if any,
23. List for reporting compliance on 10th July, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE APRIL 23, 2026/vs/prg/msh