The petitioners, who are legal heirs of several individuals who originally owned land admeasuring 1 Bigha and 1 Biswas in Khasra No. 39 in the Revenue Estate of Village Humayunpur, have been in possession of the land for several decades. The land was initially acquired by the government for public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a notification issued on 3rd September 1957. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed in 1964, and an award was passed in 1968. However, despite the acquisition proceedings, the physical possession of the land was never taken by the acquiring agency, and no compensation was provided to the landowners.

The petitioners filed a writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking protection of their possession. They argued that the acquisition proceedings, which were initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act, had lapsed under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the LARR Act. This provision, which came into force in 2014, stipulates that acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed if physical possession of the land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid within five years from the commencement of the LARR Act.

In 2016, the Delhi High Court had already ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring that the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act in respect of their land had lapsed, as the conditions set out in Section 24(2) of the LARR Act were fulfilled. Despite this judgment, the DDA continued to attempt to assert control over the land.

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's 2016 decision. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 8th November 2016, granted the DDA the liberty to reacquire the land within a year. However, the Supreme Court later permitted a review petition in similar cases, following its decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Shailender & Ors. in 2018, which addressed procedural aspects of the LARR Act.

Despite the ongoing legal complexities, the Supreme Court, in a landmark 2024 ruling, resolved the matter in favor of the petitioners by confirming that no review petitions could be filed against the Pune Municipal Corporation case (2014), which had clarified the application of Section 24(2) of the LARR Act. The Supreme Court's decision brought finality to the legal dispute over the land.

In light of the ongoing dispute and the absence of any fresh acquisition proceedings or compensation, the High Court issued a writ of prohibition in favor of the petitioners, thereby ensuring that the DDA could not interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the land. The Court recognized that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the judgment passed earlier in 2016, which had declared the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed.

The Court also emphasized that the DDA had failed to provide any notice for demolition or eviction, which would violate the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court barred any further attempts by the DDA to take possession of the land unless due process of law was followed.

This ruling represents a significant victory for the petitioners and reinforces the protection of landowners' rights under the LARR Act. The Delhi High Court's judgment ensures that the petitioners' peaceful possession of the land is preserved, acknowledging the legal lapsed status of the acquisition proceedings. With this decision, the Court has also sent a clear message regarding the application of land acquisition laws and the importance of adhering to due legal processes.

As the matter now stands, the petitioners can rest assured that their possession remains undisturbed, pending any lawful action from the authorities. The case highlights the power of legal recourse and the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected against arbitrary or unjust actions by governmental agencies.