Synopsis

The petitioner, Smt. Kamla Seth (since deceased), was the owner of a plot in Delhi. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was a tenant in the property for nearly five decades. The petitioner obtained an eviction decree against the MCD, and the MCD gave an undertaking to the High Court on 2nd September 2009 to hand over vacant possession by 30th June 2010. However, the MCD failed to do so and instead initiated land acquisition proceedings for the same property, passing a resolution for acquisition and issuing notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner challenged the acquisition in a writ petition and also filed contempt proceedings. The Delhi High Court held that the MCD’s conduct was “shocking” and “completely unbecoming of a high‑ranking public official.” The court noted that the acquisition proceedings appeared to have been commenced only because the Commissioner, MCD was directed to appear in court. The court directed the MCD to file a fresh affidavit after the Commissioner takes a “re‑look” at the matter, and listed the case for further hearing.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain

Date of Judgment: 13th April 2026

Citation: 2026:DHC:3093-DB (Cont.Cas(C) 660/2025 & W.P.(C) 5270/2013)

Core Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Contempt of Court

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 (notification), 6 (declaration), award provisions

• Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – applicability to tenancy

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – eviction decree, execution proceedings

• Constitution of India – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – undertaking to court

Key legal principles applied

• Undertaking to court is binding: When a public authority gives an undertaking to the High Court to vacate a property by a specific date, it must comply. Failure to do so can lead to contempt proceedings.

• Acquisition cannot be used as a tool to defeat a lawful eviction decree: If a public authority, after losing a eviction suit and giving an undertaking to vacate, initiates acquisition proceedings for the same property to avoid handing over possession, such conduct may be mala fide and an abuse of process.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.