Sukhbir Singh & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2684 Del

$~34

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 06.04.2015

+       W.P.(C) 8265/2014 & CM 19199/2014


SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS                                            ... Petitioners

                                        versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                    ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners         : Mr B.S. Maan and Mr Vishal Maan
For the Respondent Nos. 1&2 : Mr Siddharth Panda, Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak and
                              Mr Sunil Kumar Jha
For the Respondent No. 3    : Mr Arjun Pant



CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                             JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos. 1 & 2 states that the counter affidavit has been filed on 04.04.2015

vide Diary No. 161830. The same is not on record. The registry is

directed to place the same on record. A copy of the said counter affidavit

has been handed over to us by the learned counsel for the parties and we

have acted on that basis. The copy is also taken on record. The learned

counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as

he would be relying on the averments already made in the writ petition.

2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners seek 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. The

petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition

proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as the "1894 Act") and in respect of which Award No.

33/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners' land, comprised in Khasra Nos. 432/2 (2-08), 433/1 (1-05)

and 424 Min (0-14) measuring 4 bighas and 7 biswas in all, in Village

Mahipalpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land

Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not

been taken because of the operation of the stay order in W.P.(C)

1340/1983. This is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of

the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. It is, however, contended by

the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation

in respect of the same was deposited in the treasury. It is further

contended that, prior to that, the amount was offered to the land owners

but they did not come forward to accept the same. In these

circumstances, the compensation amount is said to have been deposited in

the treasury. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits

that if there was refusal on the part of the land owners, the same ought to

have been deposited in court and the purported deposit of the

compensation amount with the treasury would be of no consequence.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the

second proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been

introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment)

Ordinance, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Ordinance"). The

newly added proviso reads as under:-

"Provided further that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking

possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a court or in any account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded."

(underlining added)

5. On a plain reading of the proviso, it is evident that its purpose is to

compute the period of five years referred to in Section24(2) of the 2013

Act. Certain periods are to be excluded in computing the said period

referred to in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The periods to be excluded

are:

(1) the period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court; or (2) the period specified in the Award of a Tribunal for taking possession; or (3) such period where possession has been taken but the compensation is lying deposited in a court or in any account maintained for this purpose.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents are relying on the third

alternative inasmuch as it has been contended that the amount for

compensation has been placed in the government treasury. According to

the learned counsel for the respondents, this amounts to deposit "in any

account maintained for this purpose". Consequently, it is urged that the

entire period during which this amount was lying in the treasury ought to

be excluded.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the newly

added proviso does not have any application to the facts prevailing in the

present case. The question of compensation lying deposited in a court or

in any account maintained for such purposes would only arise in a case

where possession has been taken. In the present case, admittedly, the

possession has not been taken. This being the situation, the newly

inserted proviso has no application. We agree with the submission made

by the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless and until possession

is taken, the third alternative mentioned in the second proviso does not

get triggered even though compensation may be lying deposited in a court

or in any account maintained for such purposes.

8. In any event, the second proviso to Section 24(2) introduced by

virtue of the said Ordinance has been held to be only prospective in

operation by virtue of the Supreme Court decisions in M/s Radiance

Fincap (P) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.1.2015 in

Civil Appeal No.4283/2011 and Karnail Kaur & Ors. Vs. State Of

Punjab & Ors. decided on 22.1.2015 in Civil Appeal no.7424 of 2013.

The rights vested in the petitioners as on 01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013

Act have not been taken away by virtue of the introduction of the second

proviso to Section 24(2) of the said Ordinance.

9. That being the position, the question of payment of compensation

will have to be construed in the light of the various decisions rendered by

the Supreme Court and this Court in:-

(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 decided on 10.09.2014; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

In Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) it has been held that unless and

until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere

deposit of the compensation amount in a court would not amount to

payment of compensation. This aspect has also been considered in

Gyanender Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others: WP (C)

1393/2014 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.09.2014. The

same would be the position in respect of a deposit in "any account

maintained for this purpose". Consequently, the mere deposit in the

treasury, without being offered or tendered to the persons entitled would

not ipso facto amount to payment of compensation.

10. As such, in the present case, neither physical possession of the

subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid to the

petitioners. The Award was made more than five years prior to the

coming into force of the 2013 Act. No period is liable to be excluded

inasmuch as the second proviso, which has been newly inserted by virtue

of the said Ordinance, is not applicable, as indicated above.

11. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said

acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the

subject lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

12. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

APRIL 06, 2015 / SU