Maan Softech Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5449 Del

30
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 03.11.2014

W.P.(C) 5784/2014 & CM 14253/2014
MAAN SOFTECH PVT. LTD.                                                   .....Petitioner
                             versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                                 .....Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner    : Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur and Ms Richa Oberoi.

For the Respondents   : Mr Ajay Digpaul with Kunal Punj for UOI.
                        Mr Yeeshu Jain and Mr Siddharth Panda for LAC/L&B.
                        Mr Dhanesh Relan and Mr Arush Bhandari for DDA.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO


                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') which

came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the

acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award

No.15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.1307(1-13), 1314/1(0-11),

1314/2(0-2), 1314/3(0-6), 1314/4(2-0), 1314/5(1-8), 1314/6(0-6), 1315 min

(0-14), 1320(2-8) and 1321/1(2-19) measuring 12 bighas and 7 biswas in all

in village- Chatterpur, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. It is an admitted position that physical possession of the subject land

has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. However, insofar as

compensation is concerned, while the petitioner claims that no compensation

has been paid to the petitioner, the respondents contend that compensation

has been paid on account of the fact that it was deposited in court pursuant to

an order dated 30.12.2013 passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in

CM(M) No.1411/2013, except in respect of Khasra No.1307 for which,

admittedly, no compensation has been paid.

3. Insofar as the question as to whether compensation has been paid or

not paid in the circumstances mentioned above, the issue is no longer open to

debate. A similar plea was taken by the respondents in Gyanender Singh &

Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. in WP(C) No.1393/2014 decided on

23.09.2014, where there was inter alia reference to CM(M) No.1411/2013.

In that case, it was held that compensation cannot be regarded as having

been paid merely on the deposit of the same in court unless and until it has

first been offered to the person interested and he has refused to accept the

same. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation

amount was tendered in this court without first being offered to the person

interested, namely, petitioner herein. Consequently, the deposit of the

compensation amount in court cannot be construed as a payment of

compensation. We must also note that in the order dated 30.12.2013, the

learned Vacation Judge was careful to note that the said order was without

prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders. In view of the

position in Gyanender Singh (supra), which is based upon the decision of

the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand

Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183, it cannot be concluded that

the respondents have paid any compensation to the petitioner.

4. As a consequence of the above discussion, it is clear that neither

physical possession of the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring

agency nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was

made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. As

such, all the necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as

interpreted by the Supreme Court and this court in the following decisions

stand satisfied:-

(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

5. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the said

acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject

land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no

order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J NOVEMBER 03, 2014/mk