Jagdish P. Khanna vs Lt. Governor & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5860 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 17.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 4263/2014

JAGDISH P. KHANNA                                               ... Petitioner

                                        versus

LT. GOVERNOR & ORS                                              ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     : Mr N. P. Sahni with Mr Ruchesh Sinha
For the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4       : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi,
                                         Mr Siddharth Panda and Mr P. Sahu
For the Respondent No. 2               : Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr Himanshu Gupta

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                             JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is seeking 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. Consequently, the

petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894

Act'), in respect of which the Award No. 15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was

made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in khasra

numbers 1752/1(2-08) 1753/1 (2-08) and 1756/1 (2-08) measuring 7

bighas 4 biswas in all in village Chattarpur, shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

2. While the petitioner contends that the actual physical possession of

the subject land is with the petitioner, the respondents contend that the

possession was taken on 31.12.2013 in respect of Khasra numbers 1752/1

and 1753/1. They admit that in respect of the other Khasra number,

possession has not been taken. The learned counsel for the respondents,

however, contend that the compensation was paid to the petitioner by

depositing the same in Court pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation

Judge of this Court in CM (Main) 1411/2013 passed on 30.12.2013. We

may point out that by virtue of that order, the said CM (Main), amongst

others, was disposed of by recording that without prejudice to the rights

and contentions of the land holders, the cheque tendered in each petition

would be treated as tendered to the court of the learned Additional

District Judge, Delhi as of that date, that is, 30.12.2013. According to the

respondents, such deposit amounts to payment of compensation.

3. Mr Sahni, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the said

deposit cannot be regarded as payment of compensation inasmuch as it is,

in any event, not in respect of the subject land. He further submits that

the issue, even if the deposit is considered to be in respect of the subject

land, has been settled by a decision of this Court in Gyanender Singh &

Ors v. Union of India & Ors. WPC 1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014,

wherein this Court held that unless and until the compensation was

tendered to the persons interested, mere deposit of compensation in Court

would not be sufficient. The Court further 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, even if we

assume that the compensation, that was deposited in Court pursuant to

the order passed in CM (Main) 1411/2013, pertains to the land which

forms the subject matter of the present writ petition, it was deposited

without first being offered to the petitioner. Without going further into

the question as to whether the amount pertains to the petitioner's land,

following the decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), the said deposit

cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioner.

4. Insofar as the question of physical possession is concerned, it is

admitted by the respondents that in respect of part of the land in question,

possession has not been taken. Insofar as the remaining part of the land

is concerned, there is a dispute with regard to whether the actual physical

possession has been taken or not. Be that as it may, the fact remains that

the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and, therefore, as the

Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the

2013 Act, all the necessary ingredients for the application of Section

24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court

in the following decisions, stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

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

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v.

State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:

WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:

W.P.(C) 1393/2014.

5. As a result, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the

acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the

subject land have lapsed because of the deeming provision of Section

24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is so declared.

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

order as to costs.

                                        BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



NOVEMBER 17, 2014                           SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SR