RAKESH KUMAR SETHI AND ORS. vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

Judgment text excerpt

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 14th November 2025 + W.P.(C) 9261/2019 RAKESH KUMAR SETHI AND ORS. ....Petitioners Through: Mr. Anuroop PS, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Mr. Ritik Yadav and Mr. Prashant, Advocates versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J. 1. After the proceedings were decided under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter “Act of 1894”) on 8th March 2017 by the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners lodged claim under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 for grant of enhanced compensation. 2. The said proceedings initiated by the petitioner came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 16th July 2018 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, District-West Delhi. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SURYAKANT YADAV Signing Date:15.11.2025 W.P.(C) 9261/2019 Page 1 of 6 15:07:58 3. Feeling aggrieved, this petition was preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of “Madan & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra”, reported in (2013) 14 SCALE 631, would urge that the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 1894 are read down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it is held that it is open for the parties like the petitioner to take up recourse to Section 18 within the time prescribed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 1894 after the decision of the proceedings under Section 30-31 of the Act of 1894, thereby directing apportionment of the compensation. 5. According t