LA.APP. 26/2026 p. 1 $~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 26/2026 & CM APPL. 25553/2026 JAGWATI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Sanjay Sarin & Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur, Advs. through V.C. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak SC with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for R1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 07.07.2026 1. The present appeal is filed impugning order dated 20.11.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed in EX 395/2016, whereby the learned District Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts dismissed the appellants’ application for impleadment as joint decree holders in the execution petition. 2. Briefly stated, one Chandan was the absolute owner of the subject land in village Kondli, which came to be acquired by the Union of India. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, reference was sought by similarly placed landowners for enhancement, which was allowed and fair market value was assessed at ₹76,550/ bigha by the Reference Court. On 06.06.1987, the original owner–Chandan passed away, whereafter, his three sons preferred an appeal (that is, RFA No. 237/1992) before this Court for further enhancement of compensation. During the pendency of the appeal, the three sons of the original owner (that is, Tek Ram, Rajinder Singh, 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 09/07/2026 at 10:53:23 LA.APP. 26/2026 p. 2 Bijender Singh) executed a registered Assignment Deed dated 05.07.1994 in favour of one Chaman Singh and one Balraj Singh assigning all their rights in the subject property to them. Pursuant to the same, an application for substitution was preferred in the appeal, and the same was allowed. On 07.12.2000, the appeal was decided by a Division Bench of this Court whereby compensation was further enhanced. Thereafter, an Execution Petition bearing no. 18/2012 was preferred by Chaman Singh and Balraj Singh. 3. It is the case of the appellants that they are also legal heirs of the original owner–Chandan and they are entitled to their share in the compensation. On finding out about the execution proceedings, in the year 2013, the appellants preferred an application in the Execution Petition to receive their respective share of the compensation. The said application came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.07.2018. Thereafter, on 01.05.2025, the appellants filed the subject application for impleadment as legal heirs of the original owner. 4. By the impugned order, the learned Executing Court dismissed the said application, which led to filing of the present case. 5. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has stressed that undisputedly, the appellants are the daughters of the original owner–Chandan. He submits that the sons of Mr. Chandan could have only assigned their limited share in compensation to Chaman Singh and Balraj Singh. He further submits that the appellants thus have equal right to receive compensation and there was no adjudication of their objections on merits on the earlier occasion. 6. Having heard the counsel and perused the record, this Court is not persuaded by the arguments agitated on behalf of the appellants. 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 09/07/2026 at 10:53:23 LA.APP. 26/2026 p. 3 Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Executing Court had taken note of the appellants’ arguments and rejected the same on finding that the appellants had failed to challenge the assignment deed which was executed in respect of the entire land. It was further noted that RFA No. 237/1992 was filed by the brothers of the appellants in respect of the entire land. Though the record of the reference petition is not placed before this Court, the learned Executing Court has categorically observed that the appellants had not pleaded that their brothers had impleaded themselves in the reference petition without their knowledge. It was also noted that the appellants had not challenged the impleadment of their brothers in the reference petition either. Taking note of the aforesaid factors, the learned Executing Court noted that the brothers of the appellants were representing the entire subject land. 7. Although much emphasis is laid on the argument that the assignment deed is deficient as their brothers could have only assigned their limited share, undisputedly, the appellants have not challenged the Assignment Deed dated 05.07.1994 till date despite being aware of the same. 8. Even otherwise, another cogent factor which aptly weighed the learned Executing Court was that the appellants were agitating similar objections, which had been previously dismissed for non-prosecution. It was noted that the appellants were essentially agitating the same objections averred by them previously without giving any plausible explanation for non-appearance previously. Though it is argued that the application was dismissed as the appointed counsel had stopped appearing, this Court finds no merit in the said contention. The appellants cannot be allowed to shift the entire blame on their 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 09/07/2026 at 10:53:23 LA.APP. 26/2026 p. 4 previous lawyer, especially since they have failed to pursue their cause diligently. The record indicates that the counsel had last appeared on 24.09.2016 and the earlier application only came to be dismissed after almost two years on 20.07.2018. As also noted by the learned Executing Court, the appellants did not seek setting aside of the order dated 20.07.2018 and neither filed any application for restoration of their earlier objections. Moreover, despite the appellants objections being dismissed way back in the year 2018, they preferred the subject application after around seven years in the year 2025 wherein evidently similar objections have been reagitated. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay in preferring the subject application. The said facts clearly reflect that the appellants have not been vigilant and they have failed to exercise due care so as to warrant any indulgence at such a belated stage. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering that the appellants have not challenged the Assignment Deed dated 05.07.1994 and their lethargic conduct in pursuing their cause, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The present appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. 11. The appellants are at liberty to pursue any remedy against their brothers if permissible in law. AMIT MAHAJAN, J JULY 7, 2026 “SK” 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 09/07/2026 at 10:53:23