W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 1 of 32

$~52

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 6

th

April, 2026

Uploaded on: 9

th

April, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 1784/2026 & CM APPL. 19514/2026, CM APPL.

21293/2026, CM APPL. 21294/2026, CM APPL. 21295/2026

SAROJ (WIDOW OF KHEMCHAND) .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. K.C. Mittal, Mr. Yugansh Mittal,

Mr. Keshav Poonia and Mr. Madhur

Gupta, Advs. (M: 9911256665).

Mr. Vinod Dahiya, Mr. Kuldeep Antil,

Mr. Bhaskar, Mr. Ankit Malik, Advs.

Ms. Priya Darshini, Advocate.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

& ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma ASG, Mr. Sanjay

Kumar Pathak SC

(L&B/GNCTD/UOI//LAC), Mr.

Sameer Vashisht SC(C), Mr. Amit

Gupta, M. Dheeraj Kumar Singh, Adv,

Mr. Saurabh Malhotra, Mr. A. N.

Saini, Mrs K. Kaomudi Kiran, Mr.

Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar,

Ms. Joohu Kumari Advocates with

Mr. S. S. Parihar, DM (CN), Mr.

Mukesh Meena CE (PWD), Mr.

Prashant, Addl Secretary, GNCTD,

Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, ADM/LAC (CN),

Mr. Harpinder Singh, EE (PWD) and

Mr. Manoj Kumar Patwari CN district

for R-1,2 and 3 (M: 9899387799).

Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh and Ms.

Shagun Sabharwal, Advocates for

DDA (M: 7340989053).

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 2 of 32

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner -Mrs. Saroj

(Widow of Mr. Khemchand), seeking the following prayers:

“a. Issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate

writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the

Public Notice dated 21.01.2026 issued by Respondent

No. 2, being wholly illegal, without jurisdiction,

arbitrary, and unenforceable in law; and

b. Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the

Respondents to provide the documents based on which

the Petitioners/occupiers are being dispossessed from

the land of which they are in peaceful, settled and

undisturbed possession from past 5 Decades; and

c. Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate

writ, order or direction, declaring that the alleged

acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing

Khasra Nos. 12 min and 13 min, Village Haiderpur,

Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, pursuant to Award No. 40/1980-

81 and Award No. 50/1980-81, stand lapsed by

operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; and

d. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing that in the event

the Respondents seek to acquire the subject land for any

public purpose, the same shall be done only by initiating

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 3 of 32

fresh acquisition proceedings strictly in accordance

with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013, after following due process

of law and upon payment of compensation,

rehabilitation, and resettlement as mandated

thereunder, and not on the basis of the lapsed and

extinguished acquisition proceedings.

e. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents,

their officers, agents, and any person acting on their

behalf, to forthwith refrain from taking any coercive

action, including but not limited to eviction, demolition,

dispossession, sealing, or interference with possession,

of the Petitioners in respect of the subject land and the

structures standing thereon; and

f. Issue a writ of Mandamus restraining the Respondents

from acting upon, enforcing, or giving effect to the

impugned Public Notice dated 21.01.2026, or from

asserting any right, title, or interest over the subject

land on the basis of the lapsed acquisition proceedings;

and

g. Pass an interim order directing the Respondents to

maintain status quo with respect to possession, nature,

and title of the subject land during the pendency of the

present writ petition; and

h. Pass and order directing the Respondents to maintain

status quo regarding possession, change of land use and

creation of third party rights till fresh acquisition

proceedings under the RFCTLARR Act of 2013; and

i. Award costs of the present petition in favour of the

Petitioners; and

j. Pass such other and further order(s) or direction(s) as

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 4 of 32

this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts

and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of

justice.”

Factual Background

3. The brief background of the present case is that, the Petitioner claims

to be the Special Power of Attorney holder of 98 occupants/owners/

possessors (hereinafter, ‘occupants’) of land in Khasra No. 12(min) and

13(min) of Village Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the subject

land’). The list of occupants who have made the Petitioner their special power

of attorney is annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-2.

4. The Petitioner herself is stated to be in possession of a built-up

residential property, measuring approximately 150 square yards, comprising

a three-storey structure on the subject land. It is stated that the said property

has been divided amongst her three sons, who are living along with their

respective families at the said property.

5. The case of the Petitioner is that she has been residing with her sons

and their families and has been in continuous possession of the property on

the subject land, since 1962, following her marriage into the family. She

further states that she has been regularly paying the property tax, and that her

late husband’s name is duly recorded in the Khasra Girdawari/Fard for the

year 1973–1974.

6. Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter, 'Act, 1894') being F15(III)/59-LSG dated 13 November, 1959

and F.15(245)/60-LSG/L&H dated 24th October, 1961, were issued for

acquisition of the subject land, for the public purpose of 'Planned

Development of Delhi'. This was followed by two declarations under Section

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 5 of 32

6 of the Act, 1894, being No. F.4(5)/63-L&H(i) and No. F.4(5)/63-L&H(ii),

dated 6th December, 1996.

7. With a considerable gap, sometime in 1980-1981, the awards being

Award No. 40/1980-1981 dated 14th July, 1980 and Award No. 50/1980-1981

dated 18th July, 1980 (hereinafter, the awards’) were passed under Section

11 of the Act for acquisition of the subject land.

8. The acquisition was for Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter,

‘DDA’), and the compensation amount is stated to have been deposited by the

DDA.

9. According to the Petitioner, the occupants of the subject land have been

in physical possession of the properties on the subject land and have obtained

electricity, water connections, voter identity cards, ration cards and have also

paid house tax, establishing continuous possession of the said properties on

the subject land.

10. Further, it is also stated by the Petitioner that, post the acquisition, the

physical possession of the subject land was never taken or handed over to the

DDA. The stand of the residents is that several attempts have been made by

them to seek reversion of the land to the occupants. In this context, reference

is made by the Petitioner to the ‘Minutes of Meeting’ dated 19th April, 2010,

wherein a delegation from the Shalimar Bagh gaon had met the then Hon’ble

Lieutenant Governor, wherein it was agreed as under:

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 6 of 32

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 7 of 32

11. In terms of the above, a decision was taken by the Hon’ble LG that the

widening of the road in the Shalimar Bagh area was to be done in a manner

that would not affect the occupants of the subject land. For this purpose the

road widening was to be re-aligned or shifted. An assurance was also given

that the properties of the occupants would not be demolished. On the strength

of the above assurance, it is the case of the Petitioner that the re-alignment of

the road was to be done by the authorities, and until then the Petitioners were

not to be disturbed.

12. The further case of the Petitioner is that the demarcation of the subject

land was conducted without the actual occupants being taken into confidence,

and in the absence of any further re-alignment plan, no houses were to be

demolished.

13. Surprisingly, on 21

st

January, 2026 the impugned public notice was

issued by the Land Acquisition Collector/ADM, District Central North, Delhi

and was received by the occupants, stating that Road No. 320, Shalimar Bagh,

Village Haiderpur, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘Road No. 320’) is proposed to be

widened to 30 meters and objections were invited.

14. Aggrieved by the impugned public notice and the awards, the present

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 8 of 32

petition has been filed by the occupants through the Petitioner.

15. On 9

th

February, 2026, the Court had considered the matter, and after

some hearing, the following directions were issued:

“[...]

18. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the

parties and perused the records. There are serious issues

of maintainability in the present case, as the present

petition is filed in a representative capacity by one lady

i.e., Mrs. Saroj, who claims to be holding Special Power

of Attorney for 98 occupants of residential buildings and

commercial establishments in the Shalimar Bagh area.

The manner in which the present petition has been filed

is to be examined by this Court.

19. A perusal of the communications reveals that

some amount of compensation has been disbursed and

details of the same ought to be placed by the LAC.

20. According to ld. Counsel for the LAC,

references under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 have also

been made. However, the exact status of the said

references is not known.

21. At this stage, the concerned ADM, who is

present in Court, before whom the hearings are being

held, submits that the occupants are not cooperating,

despite the notices having been issued. It is submitted

that they refuse to submit the requisite documents, on the

ground that the documents are with their Counsel.

22. In this background, the Court has to examine:

(i) The status of the Petitioner and the 98 occupants and

determine the maintainability of the present writ petition;

(ii) The exact amount of compensation disbursed and the

persons who received the said compensation.

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 9 of 32

23. Under these circumstances, the Court is

inclined to pass the following directions:

(A) Affidavit to be filed by the Petitioner and

persons claiming rights over the land

(i) The Petitioner along with the 98 occupants who

are being represented, shall comply with the necessary

procedural formalities of this Court, by depositing the

requisite Court fees.

(ii) The said occupants shall also file affidavits in

support of the petition stating their respective lineage, if

any, and also how they claim rights in the properties in

question.

(iii) Let the said affidavits be filed by all the Petitioner

and the occupants along with the requisite Court fee, by

28th February, 2026.

(B) Hearing before the concerned ADM

(i) In respect of the impugned notice dated 21

st

January 2026 or related notices, the Petitioner and the

98 occupants shall appear before the concerned ADM.

(ii) The concerned ADM shall grant hearings to the

Petitioner and the 98 occupants. The hearings shall be

carried out commencing from 10th February, 2026

onwards.

(iii) The Petitioner and the 98 occupants shall place

before the concerned ADM the requisite documents

showing how they are claiming their rights over the

properties.

(iv) After perusing the concerned documents and

hearing the Petitioner and 98 occupants, the concerned

ADM shall place a report before the Court, by the next

date of hearing.

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 10 of 32

(C) Relevant documents to be furnished by LAC

Let the copy of the notification under Section 4 and

Section 6 of the Act, 1894 as also the Awards be placed

before the Court, by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, ld. SC by

28

th

February 2026. Let the copy of the same be

furnished to the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also.”

16. In the above order, the Court noted that there were serious disputes as

to the title of the Petitioner and others whom she was representing. Further,

even compensation was disbursed to some of the owners, post the acquisition.

Some persons had also filed claims which references were pending. The ADM

who was hearing objections had submitted that the occupants were not

cooperating despite notices having been issued. Under such circumstances the

Court had directed the Petitioner and the 98 occupants to file affidavits

establishing their rights. Further the ADM was directed to grant a hearing after

the occupants have filed their documents as to how they claim rights. The

ADM was to then file a report before this Court. The LAC was to place on

record the Section 4 and Section 6 notifications.

17. Pursuant thereto, the matter was listed for hearing on 25th March, 2026.

On the said date, certain documents were handed over on behalf of the Land

Acquisition Collector, in which the report/notice dated 16th March, 2026

issued by the ADM was also considered. The said report revealed that there

were a total of 157 occupants of the subject land. One of the contentions raised

by the Petitioner was that some part of the widening of Road No. 320 is to

take place in Khasra No.11(min) of Village Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi,

which has not been acquired till date. The Court had also perused the maps

and photographs of Village Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi which were

handed over by ld. Counsels for the parties. After hearing the parties, the

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 11 of 32

Court had directed as under:

“[...]

9. Let the ADM conduct a specific survey for

widening of the road in the Shalimar Bagh Area.

10. The ADM shall also furnish a list of the

occupants whose premises are to be demolished for the

purpose of road widening. The said list shall include the

corresponding property numbers, along with the names

of the occupants of the respective properties. The same

shall be placed before the Court by the next date of

hearing.

11. The Petitioners shall cooperate with the ADM

as also any other officials who may be accompanying

the ADM.

12. List on 6

th

April, 2026 in supplementary list.

13. In the meantime, no coercive measures shall be

taken without the permission of this Court.”

18. In terms of the above order, the ADM was directed to conduct a specific

survey in respect of the widening of the road. Further the ADM was directed

to file a list of occupants who would be affected by the road widening along

with the proper numbers etc.,

19. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up for hearing today. On behalf

of the Petitioner, Mr. K.C. Mittal, Mr. Vinod Dahiya, ld. Counsels and Ms.

Priya Darshini, a resident of the subject land, have been heard. They have

been duly instructed by Mr. Anil Kumar, Secretary of the Shalimar Bagh

Resident Welfare Association.

20. On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Chetan Sharma, ld. ASG, Mr.

Sanjay Kumar Pathak, ld. Counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector, Mr.

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 12 of 32

Sameer Vashisht, ld. Counsel for GNCTD and Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, ld.

Counsel for the DDA have been heard. They were assisted by the

representative Counsels and officials from the respective Departments.

21. The following documents have been handed over by the parties:

(i) General Development Plan of Shalimar Bagh, Block C&D, Layout

Plan dated 16th June, 1987 (hereinafter, the ‘layout plan of 1987’);

(ii) Schematic Plan of Road No. 320 and the surrounding area

(hereinafter, ‘the schematic plan’);

(iii) Akasa Shajra of Shalimar Bagh Village;

(iv) Integrated Transit Corridor Development & Street

Network/Connectivity Layout plan dated 23rd January, 2017;

(v) Relevant pages from the Field Book Village record;

(vi) Relevant provisions of Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 distinguishing

between arterial roads, collector roads, local streets.

22. Further, a video concerning the subject land in Shalimar Bagh village

has been placed on record in a pendrive by the ld. Counsels for the

Respondents. The documents and the video in the pendrive, having been

produced before the court, are taken on record.

Submissions on behalf of the parties

23. Mr. K.C. Mittal, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has made the following

submissions:

(i) Reliance is placed upon the reply filed by the Petitioner to the status

report filed by the DDA to argue that the Shalimar Bagh village is

part of the colonies which have been agreed for regularization under

the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021. It is submitted that the

regularization of the Shalimar Bagh village having been done, and

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 13 of 32

the map having been notified, it would not be permissible for the

Respondents to dispossess the Petitioner/occupants.

(ii) As per the reply of the Petitioner to the status report filed by the

DDA, the Ministry of Urban Development vide letter dated 5th

October, 2007 had issued the Revised guidelines for Regularisation

of Unauthorised Colonies of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘2007 guidelines’).

Pursuant to the said regularisation and the fact that it is stated that

the Shalimar Bagh village is covered under the 2007 guidelines, it

is stated that the provisional certificates for regularization were also

issued to the occupants. Thus, it is submitted that the

Petitioner/occupants enjoy the protection of the 2007 guidelines.

(iii) Further, reliance is also placed upon the ‘Layout plan of Shalimar

Village at property bearing Khasra No.-11,12,13, Shalimar

Village, Delhi-88’ which has been annexed as Annexure-E to the

reply filed by the Petitioner to the status report filed by the DDA,

to contend that Road No. 320 is shown as a 10 meter road.

(iv) In addition, reliance is also placed upon the status report of DDA,

as per which, the DDA has accepted that an assurance was given by

the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor.

(v) It is also submitted that the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 in fact,

creates a distinction between three categories of roads i.e., arterial

roads, collector roads and local streets. It is only the arterial roads

which have to be beyond 30 meters wide. The right of way for

collector roads would be between 12 to 30 meters. The right of way

for local streets is between 9-12 meters. According to the Schematic

Plan which has been placed on record, the width of Road No.320

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 14 of 32

is 19.50 meters. However, it is submitted that the Road No. 320

being a collector road, the right of way has to be between 12 to 30

meters and need not be 30 meters. Thus, the impugned public notice

deserves to be quashed.

(vi) Furthermore, it is also submitted that the Master Plan for Delhi,

2021 and the zonal plan are different plans. The Respondents do not

have any basis for widening the Road No. 320 and that too when

there are so many families which are likely to be affected in the

process.

(vii) Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the ld. Division Bench

of this Court in Banwari Lal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.

2013 SCC OnLine Del 2179, wherein the Division Bench of this

Court has granted protection to residents of unauthorised colonies

under National Capital Territory of Delhi (Special Provisions) Act,

2007, even though there was an encroachment on public land.

24. On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Chetan Sharma ld. ASG along with

Mr. Pathak has made submissions on the following aspects:

(i) Reliance is placed upon the status report filed by the ADM-cum-

LAC, which was filed in compliance to the orders dated 9th

February, 2026 and 25th March, 2026. As per the said report, the

entire subject land is acquired land.

(ii) Further, it is also submitted that the challenge to the acquisition of

the subject land has already been dismissed by this Court vide

judgement dated 25th February, 1997 in Writ Petition (C) 730/1980

titled ‘M/s Prem Chand Ramesh Chand v. Delhi Development

Authority and Another and connected matters. The relevant portion

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 15 of 32

of the judgement dated 25th February, 1997 is set out below:

“[...]

Apart from above, the petitioner is not entitled to any

discretionary and equitable relief for the reasons which

we would presently notice. The petitioner has not filed

any document of title on record except only a copy of

Khasra girdhawari for 1979-80. It cannot and has not

been urged to be a document of title. This khasra

girdhawari only shows that there are some godowns on

the land in question. The petitioner is not the recorded

owner. The recorded owner of the land are different

persons. The petitioner has not even disclosed in the writ

petition as to when the structures / godowns were

constructed. It has also not been disclosed in the writ

petition that in respect of land in question Section 4 and

Section 6 notifications had been issued. It could not be

disputed that the alleged constructions were made after

issue of the said notifications. The petitioner has also

not disclosed as to whether the recorded owners filed

or not objections under Section 5-A of the Land

Acquisition Act. These material facts were suppressed

and not disclosed with a view to secure interim

protection from this court. The demolition and

dispossession could not take place because of the

interim orders and, therefore, it does not now lie in the

mouth of the petitioner to contend that the acquisition is

not complete since possession has not been taken. We

feel that the writ petitions deserve dismissal on the short

ground of suppression of material facts.

For the reasons aforesaid, all the writ petitions are

dismissed with costs. Counsel fee quantified at

Rs.5,000/- in each case.”

The aforesaid judgement was assailed by the occupants before the

Supreme Court by SLP Civil No. 022806-022818/1997, which is

stated to be dismissed on 7

th

January, 2000. Thus, it is submitted

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 16 of 32

that the acquisition of the subject land being upheld, the occupants

do not have a right to challenge the same. The only right that they

would have is one of compensation and nothing more.

(iii) Further, it is pointed out that in terms of the Master Plan for Delhi,

2021, there is an encroachment of approximately 24 meters on Road

No. 320. It is stated that the subject land, being a government land,

has been encroached upon with 5 to 6 storey buildings raised over

it, without any authorization whatsoever.

(iv) It is also highlighted by means of a video, that the proposed road

widening is necessary to create a proper right of way for

ambulances, school buses and other critical vehicular traffic. It is

contended that during peak hours, the area experiences severe

traffic congestion, leaving no space for smooth vehicular

movement. It is also stated that such unauthorized constructions are

significantly hampering connectivity, including access to key

infrastructure projects and public utility services in Delhi.

(v) Additionally, it is also submitted that the total number of properties

which would be affected by the widening of the Road No. 320 is

approximately 143, and most of them do not have any valid legal

title to the subject land.

(vi) Finally, it is urged that in respect of the protection under National

Capital Territory of Delhi (Special Provisions) Act, 2007, the same

would not be available to the Petitioner/occupants in terms of the

judgment of this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Ram

Rati (Now Deceased) Through Lr’s and Others, 2018 SCC

OnLine Del 11390.

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 17 of 32

25. On behalf of the DDA, the submissions of Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, ld.

Counsel, are as follows:

(i) There are different levels of plans that are created by the DDA for

the purpose of planned development of the city of Delhi. The

Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 is a notional plan and does not go into

details of each colony. At the second level is the zonal development

plan and then comes the layout plan which is also known as the

general development plan.

(iii) In the present case, insofar as Shalimar Bagh Village is concerned,

the layout plan of 1987, which was prepared by the DDA and has

been approved way back on 16

th

June, 1987, shows that Road No.

320 is to be a 30 meter road.

(iv) It is further submitted that the layout plan of 1987 itself records that

there are various unauthorised structures which have been built on

the road no. 320.

(v) It is also submitted that after the layout plan is approved, on the

basis of the said layout plan, the Unified Traffic & Transportation

Infrastructure (PLG.& ENGG.) (hereinafter, ‘UTTIPEC’) approves

the road widening. It is stated that in the present case, the approval

happened in 2016. In this context, reliance is placed upon the

‘Minutes of the 52

nd

UTTIPEC Governing body meeting’ held on

13th January, 2016 which shows that the ‘Corridor from RUB

Shalimar Bagh to outer Ring Road’ was approved and the same is

in terms of the zonal development plan.

26. At this stage, Mr. Vinod Dahiya, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits

that a substantial portion of widening of Road No. 320, in fact, falls in Khasra

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 18 of 32

No. 11(min) of Village Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. He contends that

this land does not form a part of the acquired land, and, therefore, the road

widening is completely contrary to law.

27. Insofar as the argument raised by Mr. Vinod Dahiya, ld. Counsel is

concerned, Mr. Manoj Kumar, the patwari is present in Court. The akasa

shajra of the Shalimar Bagh Village from the revenue record has been placed

on record. The same is in Urdu and has been interpreted by the patwari. The

relevant extract of the same is extracted below:

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 19 of 32

28. The patwari has been asked to explain as to what the highlighted

portion means. He has categorically and unequivocally informed the Court

that the original akasa shajra in his records, reflects that the highlighted

portion of the land as an extension of Khasra No. 12. The same is also

reflected in the copy of the field book records which have been placed before

the Court. The relevant portion of the field book record is set out below:

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 20 of 32

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 21 of 32

Analysis and directions

29. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties and has perused the

records.

30. There is no doubt that when there is unregulated growth of population

within cities, there is constant friction that exists between the interest of the

residents and occupants of an area and the infrastructure which is

correspondingly to be created. The subject land, in respect of which the

present petition has been filed, is part of land which the Respondents are

intending to use for the purpose of widening of the Road No. 320.

31. The Court has perused four different maps as also the video which has

been placed on record in order to assess the requirement of the Respondents.

There is no doubt that the carriage ways on one side is wide and on the other

side where there is unauthorised encroachment, is quite narrow. In this regard,

the relevant portion of the schematic plan, depicting the current situation is

set out below:

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 22 of 32

32. A perusal of the schematic plan shows that a railway line and land run

contiguous to Road No. 320 which is depicted in black colour and is shown

as 19.5 meters wide. On the side where the Shalimar Bagh village lies, the

encroachment by the occupants is shown to be 10.5 meters and is depicted in

red.

33. Further, the video of the Shalimar Bagh village which has been placed

on record would also show that there is a wide carriageway and footpath on

one side. However, on the side where the occupants are living and where the

road is sought to be expanded, the road has only one lane for vehicular traffic

and the other lane is occupied by parked cars. There is also no footpath.

Ambulances, school buses and traffic has to flow through this road to reach

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 23 of 32

the two underpasses as also GT Karnal road. In this regard, the relevant

extracts from the video are set out below:

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 24 of 32

The above video and images are taken on a non-working day but the Court is

informed that on working days, the vehicular traffic creates a traffic jam and

it takes substantial time for traffic to pass through this small patch of road due

to encroachments on the left side by shops, residents, parked vehicles, etc.,

34. The Court has heard the matter in great detail on three different

occasions. The Court is also conscious of the fact that there are several

families which may be living in the patch of the subject land, which is to be

used for the road widening purpose, for many years. However, in so far as the

nature of the subject land is concerned, it is clear that the same is a public

land.

35. The subject land was acquired way back in the 1960s, and the

acquisition of the subject land has also been upheld by the Supreme Court. It

is possible that the Respondents are proceeding in a phased manner,

undertaking development as and when required, and that appears to be the

position in the present case as well.

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 25 of 32

36. The occupants in the Shalimar Bagh village may have tried to acquire

some title in the patch of subject land, and they may be using it for various

purposes including residential, commercial, building guest houses, etc.

However, the Court is informed that in the near vicinity of the subject land,

there is a private hospital i.e., MAX hospital, government hospital,

institutional area where the Delhi Police has an integrated complex operation

and a proposed educational institution which is 30 meters away from the

subject land. The same is also visible in the schematic plan extracted above.

37. Moreover, a perusal of the video as also the maps would show that in

the particular stretch, the road follows a zigzag course due to encroachments

and the unavailability of land for expansion. The said road also leads to two

underpasses in the Shalimar Bagh area, and connects to the Outer Ring Road,

and further links traffic to the GT Karnal road bypass.

38. The Court is convinced that the widening of Road No. 320 is an

important infrastructural development that cannot be delayed and ought to be

permitted in an expeditious manner, so as to ensure that Road No. 320

becomes adequately accessible for critical emergency vehicles, such as

ambulances, fire services as also vehicular traffic including school buses etc.,

which may need to access or pass through the area.

39. The Shalimar Bagh area is a highly populated area, however, while

striking a balance between the needs of occupants and infrastructural

development, it must be borne in mind that the land in question is a public

land, and the encroachment by the occupants is completely illegal and

contrary to law.

40. Further the argument that the subject patch of land is in Khasra no.11

is completely belied, as the Patwari who was present in Court, has presented

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 26 of 32

the two documents viz., the akasa shajra and the Field book which shows that

the patch of land falls in Khasra no.12 The urdu symbol ‘ ب ’

is supposed to be read as ‘Ba’, which is pronounced as ‘be:’. The same is to

be interpreted in terms of the akasa shajra and the field book records

produced by the Patwari as an ‘Extension of Khasra No.12’.

41. Considering the needs of the occupants, the ADM, vide the impugned

public notice had rightly invited objections from the occupants of the

unauthorised structures encroaching the subject land. The said objections

were to be furnished by the occupants within 15 days. The same is recorded

in the impugned public notice which is set out below:

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 27 of 32

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 28 of 32

42. Initially, when the writ petition was filed, most of the occupants neither

filed their objections nor did they appear before the ADM/LAC. However,

upon orders being passed by this Court, the occupants appeared with their

requisite documents and a detailed status report has since been filed, in respect

of the hearings conducted by the ADM.

43. A perusal of the detailed chart, annexed to the status report of the LAC,

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 29 of 32

recording the hearing of 157 cases by the ADM (hereinafter, ‘the chart’),

reveals that most of the documents relied upon by the occupants, pertain only

to post 1990s, and in some cases they belong to the 1980s. However, there are

no documents prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings of the

subject land, when notifications under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 were issued

on 13

th

November 1959 and 24

th

October 1961.

44. Further, the chart would also reveal that most of the occupants claim

rights only through GPAs, which may not even be registered. In most cases,

there are no sale deeds and the title in respect of all the occupants seems to be

unestablished. It is under these circumstances that the Court has to consider

whether the widening of Road No. 320 can be held back or not.

45. In the opinion of this Court, the expansion of infrastructural projects,

especially those concerning access to essential services, such as medical care,

education, and fire safety, ought not to be delayed any further, as such delay

would be detrimental to the larger interests of the residents of Shalimar Bagh.

In these circumstances, the interest of private occupants who are encroaching

upon public land must yield to the broader public interest, including the needs

of the residents and the smooth flow of vehicular traffic in the said area.

46. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the widening

of Road No. 320 cannot be delayed any further. The residents have to ensure

that the same is also not hampered or obstructed in any manner. The Court

has repeatedly queried the Respondents to justify as to why the road had to be

30 metres wide.

47. A perusal of the status report of the DDA would show that, pursuant to

the initial meeting dated 19th April, 2010, which was held between a

delegation from Shalimar Bagh area and the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor,

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 30 of 32

and which is relied upon by the occupants of the area, a meeting dated 19th

November, 2012 was held by the Vice Chairman, DDA to deal with the issue

of re-examination of alignment of the road. However, no fresh proposals were

submitted for re-alignment. Thus, the re-alignment in the said manner was not

approved.

48. Subsequent to the said meeting, the construction of the complete 30

meters wide road was considered necessary in the larger public interest and

for the overall development of Delhi, particularly as it connects GT Karnal

Road with the Outer Ring Road, through this area. The further reasons for the

expansion of Road No.320 is set out in the Status report filed on behalf of the

Delhi Development Authority. It is stated that Road No. 320 is essential for

the accessibility to various infrastructural projects and proposed utility

centres, which include the following:

Infrastructural Project/Utility

Distance

Existing Govt Girls Sr. Sec. School 117 meters

Existing MCD Community Centre towards RUB 160 meters

Existing Max Super Speciality Hospital 300 meters

Existing Delhi Police Integrated Complex

Operations and Communication

384 meters

Existing Fortis Hospital 1.5 Km

Existing MCD Maternity Child Welfare Centre

and Ayurvedic Hospital

730 meters

Existing RUB towards Azadpur Mandi 168 meters

Existing Passport Sewa Kendra 1.3 Km

Govt. Hospital under construction/renovation

(Outer Ring Road side)

181 meters

Underpass connecting Road No.320 to Outer

Ring Road

726 meters

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 31 of 32

Proposed Educational Institution adjacent to

Govt. Hospital (Outer Ring Road side)

30 meters

Proposed Disaster Management Office/Institute

adjacent to Govt. Hospital (Outer Ring Road

side)

200 meters

49. Further, as per the records which have been produced before the Court,

the conceptual plan of PWD project titled ‘Corridor from RUB Shalimar Bagh

to Outer Ring Road’ was approved in 2016 vide ‘52

nd

Governing Body

Meeting of UTTIPEC’ dated 13th January, 2016.

50. Additionally, it also needs to be considered that the subject land is near

a railway line, which is crossing the subject land. There is no scope for

expansion of the road on the side abutting the railway track. The mandatory

safety conditions applicable for the railway line are to be maintained. Under

such circumstances, the Court has no option but to allow the widening of Road

No. 320 and make it a 30 meter road.

51. In the overall facts and circumstances, the following directions are

issued:

i) The concerned authorities shall proceed with the expansion of Road

No. 320, in accordance with the approval of the UTTIPEC dated

13th January, 2016.

ii) A reasonable time period shall be granted to the occupants to

remove their belongings and vacate the unauthorised

encroachments near the Road No. 320, so that they are not

unnecessarily inconvenienced. For the said purpose, the concerned

ADM shall interact with the occupants and fix an outer limit by

which the occupants shall vacate the properties on the subject land

W.P.(C) 1784/2026 Page 32 of 32

under their occupation and possession. In any event, this period

shall not be beyond 30

th

May, 2026.

iii) The GNCTD shall take an appropriate decision regarding the grant

of ex gratia compensation to be awarded to the occupants, in

accordance with law, as prayed for by the Petitioner and other

occupants, and the same shall be considered in a sympathetic

manner.

iv) Upon the expiry of the aforesaid period i.e., 30

th

May 2026, the

Respondents are at liberty to proceed with the expansion of Road

No. 320 and to remove all the encroachments/unauthorized

constructions.

v) Until the reasonable time to vacate expires in terms of (ii) above,

the Petitioners shall not be displaced, subject to their cooperation

with the authorities in terms of the present directions.

52. The present petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending

applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGE

MADHU JAIN

JUDGE

APRIL 6, 2026/mr/sm