Delhi High Court
Manav Dharma Trust vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 1 October, 2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.10.2014
+ W.P.(C) 3430/2014
MANAV DHARMA TRUST ... Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sameer Jain with Mr Sandeep Bajaj, Mr Siddharth
Jain and Mr Ekank Mehra
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. By way of this writ petition, 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.
2. The petitioner‟s case is that the possession of the subject land is with the
petitioner and the respondents have not taken possession of the same. He also
submits that the Award was made on 19.09.1986 (Award No. 207/1986-87),
which is more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. He
also submits that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.
Therefore, all the ingredients necessary for deeming the acquisition to
have lapsed, as provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, have been
satisfied.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that possession was taken
over by the respondents on 08.05.1987. Insofar as the issue of compensation is
concerned, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not want
compensation and the statement on behalf of the petitioner recorded at the time
of the initial challenge to the acquisition proceedings in the order dated
06.11.2003 in CWP No. 405/1983 titled Gopal Sharma and Others v. Union of
India and Others was that the petitioner does not want any compensation and
that the land ought not to be acquired. Earlier, the land was in the name of one
Gopal Sharma, who stated that he was not interested in the land any longer
inasmuch as the trust (the petitioner herein) was the owner of the land. The
learned counsel for the respondents state that because of the statement made on
behalf of the petitioner that it does not want compensation, the same was not
paid to the petitioner.
4. If we examine the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183, it would be found that the Supreme Court took
the view that for the purposes of Section 24(2), compensation shall be
regarded as "paid" if the compensation has been offered to the person
interested and such compensation has been deposited in the Court where
a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be
made on the happening of any of the contingencies contemplated under
Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act reads as
under:-
31 Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.
(1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no
person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute
as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the
apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of
the compensation in the Court to which a reference under
section 18 would be submitted:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive
such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:
Provided also that no person who has received the amount
otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any
application under section 18:
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the
liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part
of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to
the person lawfully entitled thereto.
5. It would be evident from the above that one of the contingencies
contemplated in Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act is where the persons
interested do not consent to receive the compensation. Even if we assume
that in this case the petitioner had not consented to receive the
compensation, it did not absolve the respondents from depositing the
amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section
18 of that Act could be submitted. It is an admitted position that the
respondents and, in particular, the Land Acquisition Collector has not
deposited any amount representing the compensation in Court as required
under Section 31 (2) of the 1894 Act. Clearly, the respondents cannot be
regarded as having paid the compensation to the petitioner/ interested
persons. That being the position, in view of the very same decision of the
Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would
get attracted.
6. As a result, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the subject
acquisition ought to be deemed to have lapsed. The lands of the
petitioner measuring 25 bighas and 17 biswas situated in the Revenue
Estate of village Pul Pehlad Pur, New Delhi, and covered by the subject
acquisition are as follows:-
S.No. Khasra No. Area
1. 238/1/2 0-14
2. 238/2/1 1-13
3. 241/1/2 2-05
4. 242 1-06
5. 243 4-16
6. 244/1 4-09
7. 252 4-16
8. 253/1 4-15
9. 254/1/1 1-03
7. The acquisition in respect of the aforesaid lands shall be deemed to
have lapsed. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There
shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
OCTOBER 01, 2014
SR
