Shalimar Bagh Road Project Gets Green Signal as Delhi High Court Prioritises Public Interest

The Delhi High Court has held that private interests of individuals occupying public land without legal title cannot override the larger public interest, particularly in matters involving critical infrastructure development.

Upholding the widening of a key road in Shalimar Bagh, the Court emphasised that projects aimed at improving access to essential services such as healthcare, education, and emergency response must not be stalled on account of encroachments.

A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain allowed the road expansion project concerning Road No. 320, approving its widening to 30 metres.

The Court directed that the encroaching occupants vacate the land within a time-bound framework, with an outer deadline of May 30, 2026, and clarified that authorities would thereafter be at liberty to proceed with demolition and execution of the project without obstruction.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by Saroj, representing nearly 98 occupants residing on land in Village Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh.

The petitioners claimed long-standing possession of the land, relying on documents such as electricity bills, tax receipts, and voter identity cards to assert continuous occupation over several decades. They also contended that certain assurances had been extended by authorities in the past and placed reliance on policies relating to regularisation of unauthorised colonies.

Opposing the plea, the Government authorities argued that the land in question had been acquired in the 1960s under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for planned development.

It was submitted that the petitioners were unauthorised occupants with no valid legal title, and that the proposed road widening was essential to ease traffic congestion and ensure seamless connectivity to vital public facilities, including hospitals and schools.

After considering the submissions and material on record, the Court found that the petitioners’ claim to title was untenable. It noted that most occupants relied on General Power of Attorney (GPA) documents, many of which were unregistered, and that no valid sale deeds had been produced to establish lawful ownership.

The Court observed that such documents could not confer any legal right over the land.

Significantly, the Bench underscored that infrastructure projects linked to public welfare cannot be indefinitely delayed due to private claims lacking legal backing.

It observed that the widening of Road No. 320 was crucial for ensuring smooth vehicular movement and improving access to essential services, including medical facilities, schools, and emergency services such as fire safety.

In a key observation, the Court held that where competing interests arise, the balance must tilt in favour of the larger community.

It stated that allowing unauthorised occupants to stall public infrastructure projects would be detrimental to the broader interests of residents and would impede urban development.

The Court also took note of the geographical limitations of the site, observing that the land abutted a railway line.

Due to safety restrictions applicable to railway tracks, expansion on that side was not feasible, making the proposed widening from the available side the only viable option.

This factor, the Court held, further justified the necessity of proceeding with the project as planned.

Rejecting the plea to halt the project, the Court made it clear that the road widening could not be delayed any further. At the same time, it sought to balance equities by directing the authorities to adopt a humane approach in dealing with the affected occupants.

To this end, the Court directed the concerned Additional District Magistrate (ADM) to engage with the occupants and determine a reasonable timeline for vacating the premises, while ensuring that the process is conducted in a structured and orderly manner.

However, it fixed May 30, 2026 as the outer limit for such relocation.

Additionally, the Bench directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to consider the grant of ex gratia compensation to the affected occupants in a “sympathetic manner,” in accordance with applicable law. This direction reflects the Court’s attempt to mitigate hardship while ensuring that the project proceeds without undue delay.

The Court further clarified that upon expiry of the stipulated period, the authorities would be fully entitled to remove encroachments and carry out demolition, if necessary, to facilitate the road widening project.

The judgment thus reiterates the principle that unauthorised occupation of public land does not create enforceable rights capable of defeating public interest projects.

It reinforces judicial deference to infrastructure development initiatives, particularly those aimed at improving civic amenities and urban mobility, while also acknowledging the need for a balanced and humane approach in implementation.

Case Title: Saroj (Widow of Khemchand) v. State of NCT of Delhi Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain

Date of Judgment: 09.04.2026