Satish Kumar and Anr v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors

order dated 26th February 2016 which stood confirmed on 18th January 2018 stands vacated."

¶8Thus, the issue pertaining to the subject land of 05 biswas has already been considered by this Court, as evident from paragraph 7, extracted hereinabove.

¶9In addition, the Coordinate bench of this Court has also considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 and has held that the petition would not be maintainable.

¶10Accordingly, the same issue cannot now be canvassed in a fresh writ petition, which would be the third round.

¶11Under these circumstances, the present petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

¶12If any remedy for claiming compensation is still available, the Petitioners are at liberty to avail of the same, in accordance with law.

¶13If such a claim for compensation is filed by the Petitioners, the LAC shall verify whether the compensation in respect of the subject land has been paid or not and if not, the same shall be released to the Petitioner.

¶14The present petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE MAY 5, 2026/prg/sm

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 5th May, 2026 Uploaded on: 7th May, 2026 + W.P.(C) 4957/2026 & CM APPL. 24375/2026 SATISH KUMAR AND ANR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Ms Renu, Mr. Swagata Gupta, Adv. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak SC with Mrs. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar, Miss Joohu Kumari & Mr. Kushagra Dixit, Advs. Mr Arjun Mahajan SC, Ms Monica Batra Adv, Mr Apoorv Upmanyu, Mr Ravikant Kumar, Advs. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners- Mr. Satish Kumar and Mr. Jagdish under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the acquisition of land admeasuring 05 Biswas out of total land of 2 Bighas, 11 Biswas, in Khasra No. 28/4/2 (min.) situated in Village Bamnoli, Tehsil Kapashera, District South West (hereinafter, 'the subject land'). 3. The case of the Petitioners is that the subject land was never acquired by the authorities and possession was also not taken. Further, it is also contended that the acquisition of the subject land has lapsed, pursuant to Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 4. Furthermore, Mr. Mishra, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the document filed before the concerned District Judge, Dwarka Courts, concerning the proceedings of the subject land, wherein, the clear stand of the LAC is that the possession of subject land was not taken. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pathak, ld. Counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter, 'LAC'), relies upon the final judgment of this Court dated 15th April, 2019 in W.P.(C) 1643/2016 titled 'Satish Kumar and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.'. Vide the said judgment, the issue raised in the present petition has already been considered by a Coordinate bench of this Court, and it was held that no relief would be liable to be granted. 6. The Court has considered the matter. A perusal of the final judgment dated 15th April, 2019 in Satish Kumar and Ors. (Supra) would show that in the said judgment, all the aspects which are today sought to be canvassed in the present petition, have already been considered by a Coordinate bench of this Court. 7. The relevant portions of the judgement dated 15th April, 2019 in Satish Kumar and Ors. (Supra) are set out below: "2. The Petitioners state that they are the recorded owners of the aforementioned land ad-measuring 01 bigha and 01 biswa comprising in khasra No. 28//4/1 min., situated in Village-Bamnoli, District- South-West, New Delhi. It is stated that the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are co-owners of land admeasuring 5 biswas, each of them having half share. The Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are stated to be the owners of 04 biswas each and the predecessors-in- interest of Petitioner No.6 (i) to (vii) was the owner of 04 biswas. It is stated that the khasra No. 28//4/1 min. is the post consolidation number after the acquisition proceedings took place in the said village in 1997. 3. The land in question was sought to be acquired by issuance of a notification dated 4th November 2004 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LAA'). This notification was in respect of 2100 bighas and 06 biswas of land in village- Bamnoli and was for the public purpose of Dwarka Phase-II. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 LAA on 31st October 2005. The Award No. 01/2007-08 was passed on 6th August 2007. 4. Earlier, Petitioners to filed W.P.(C)6686/2007 challenging aforementioned Award. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 16th May 2008. 5. The Petitioners claim that compensation qua 01 biswa of land in khasra No. 28//4/1 min. was paid to Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 and that payment qua remained 03 biswas was withheld on