Delhi High Court – Orders
Chanderlekha Solomon vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 12 August, 2025
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12158/2025 & CM APPL. 49610/2025, CM APPL.
49611/2025
CHANDERLEKHA SOLOMON .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Smita Maan, Mr. Vishal Maan
and Mr. Aditya Singh, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel for R-1 & 2 with Mrs. K.K.
Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha
and Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs for R-1 &
R-2.
Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC with Mr.
Naveen, Mr. Sandeep Mishra and Mr.
Harshit Deshwal, Advs. for R-3/UOI.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel for DDA with Mr. Kuljeet
Singh, Mr. Prateek Dhir and Mr.
Shivam Takiar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 12.08.2025
1. Having heard the counsel for petitioner at length, what can be noticed
from the pleadings in the petition is the challenge to the notice dated 31st
July 2025 (‘impugned notice’), issued under Section 21 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act 2013 (‘Act of 2013’), in respect to the land described in the
prayer clause. For ease of reference the said prayer is extracted as under:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2025 at 22:44:19
“Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the
public notice dated 31.07.2025 issued under Section 21
of the New Land Acquisition Act, 2013 in respect of the
Petitioner land khasra nos. 27/2 min (4-16), 9 (4-16),
10 (4-16), 11 (4-16), 20 (4-16), 21/2 (0-07), 37/1/2 (0-
07), 10/2 (0-07) and 11/2 (0-06), total ad-measuring
25 bighas and 07 biswas Village Bamnoli, New Delhi”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Apex Court in the matter of
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. BSK Realtors LLP (2024) 7 SCC 370, has issued
following directions:
“58. So far as the cases falling under Groups A and B-
1 are concerned (for which we have already condoned
delay and have granted leave through paras 1 and 2 of
this judgment), we hold that, owing to the exceptional
and unprecedented situation having arisen for the
reasons already discussed elaborately, we do not deem
it necessary to draw any distinction among the cases
classified under Groups A and B-1 vis-à-vis case
falling in Group C. Consequently, taking an overall
view of the matter and upon due consideration of the
principles of uniformity, consistency, and public
interest involved, we exercise the jurisdiction conferred
upon this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution and
issue the following directions in each of the cases that
have been dealt with by this judgment and classified
under Groups A and B-1:
58.1. 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 1-
8-2024 whereupon compensation to the affected
landowners may be paid in accordance with
law, failing which consequences, also as per
law, shall follow;
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2025 at 22:44:19
58.2. 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;
58.3. 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 the timeline of one year extended at para
58.1 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;
58.4. 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 para 58.1 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 a preliminary
notification within the meaning of Section 11 of
the 2013 Act, and shall be deemed to have been
published as on 1-1-2014;
58.5. 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,This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2025 at 22:44:19
proceed to take necessary steps as per the
procedure contemplated under Section 21
onwards of Chapter IV of the 2013 Act, save and
except where compliance of any provision has
been expressly or impliedly dispensed with;
58.6. 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;
58.7. 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
the direction in para 58.6 above;
58.8. 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 1-1-2014 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.;
58.9. The Collector shall consider all the
parameters prescribed under Section 28 of the
2013 Act for determining the compensation for
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;
58.10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, since it is difficult to reverse the clock
back, the compliance of Chapter V pertaining toThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2025 at 22:44:19
“Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award” is
hereby dispensed with; and
58.11. The expropriated landowners shall be
entitled to seek reference for enhancement of
compensation in accordance with Chapter VIII
of the 2013 Act.”
(emphasis added)
Annexure 1
Category of cases in the present batch
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that, deviating from the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2025 at 22:44:19
scheme as prescribed under the Act of 2013, the Apex Court has fixed a
schedule in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 (‘Constitution’), and the schedule should have been adhered to
by the respondents.
4. It is claimed that the impugned notice issued under Section 21 of the
Act of 2013 is sans the schedule prescribed and, as such, attracts the
consequences under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 for not completing the
acquisition proceedings within schedule.
5. It is the contention of the counsel for petitioner that the schedule,
since it is in deviation from the statutory provisions, i.e. Act of 2013 and is
fixed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, has a
mandatory effect and, as a sequel, the notice under Section 21 of the Act of
2013 stands vitiated.
6. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel for
respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC for respondent no. 3
and Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel for DDA, accepts notice on
behalf of respective respondents.
7. Issue notice to the remaining respondent, returnable on 22nd
September, 2025.
8. We make it clear that no further action pursuant to the notice under
Section 21 of the Act of 2013, as against the land of the petitioner, be
undertaken till returnable date.
9. The aforesaid injunction order is passed taking in view the prima
facie satisfaction by this Court that the schedule as ordered by the Apex
Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. BSK Realtors LLP (supra)
appears to be mandatory in nature.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2025 at 22:44:19
10. Re-notify on 22nd September, 2025. On the same day other matter
regarding similar issues is also listed – W.P.(C) 11820/2025 titled as
“Lokesh Lochav & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.”
11. Order be uploaded to the website of this Court.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J
ANISH DAYAL, J
AUGUST 12, 2025/MK/sp
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2025 at 22:44:19