SARJIT SINGH AND ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16th October, 2025 + W.P.(C) 3352/2018 SARJIT SINGH AND ORS. ...Petitioners Through: Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mrs K.K Kiran Pathak, Mr. Mohd Sueb Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for R-1/LAC. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Mishra, Standing Counsel, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika and Mr. Ankit, Advocates for R-DDA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J. 1. Petitioners’ land was acquired by respondents under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Act of 1894’) vide Award dated 27th January 2006. Signature Not Verified Signed By:ALKA BOBAL W.P(C)3352/2018 Page 1 of 8 Signing Date:17.10.2025 16:36:26 2. Pursuant to the said Award, not only compensation is received by petitioners, but also the possession was taken by the respondents. 3. It appears from the submissions placed on record by the respondent that Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Cooperation Limited (DSIIDC) have protected the land in question by putting a compound. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled for restoration of the land in question as, for more than 20 years, the respondents have not conducted any development activity on the same, and in such an eventuality, subject to petitioners being put to the condition of return of amount of compensation received by them, the land needs to be restored to them, as the respondents does not need the land for any developmental activity in public interest. 5. It is claimed that even if the land vested with respond