Reena Suri vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 236 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 12.01.2015

+      W.P.(C) 6698/2014 and CM No. 15892/2014

REENA SURI                                                      ... Petitioner

                                         versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                            ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           :   Mr Ajay Sharma
For the Respondent No.1      :   Mr Ripu Daman Bhardwaj with Mr T.P. Singh
For the Respondent No.2      :   Mr Pawan Mathur
For the Respondent No.3&4    :   Mr Siddharth Panda


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

                                    JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 has handed over the

counter affidavit on behalf of the said respondent. The same is taken on

record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file a

rejoinder inasmuch as he would be relying on the averments made in the

writ petition.

2. 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. The

petitioner, consequently, seeks 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. 15/1987-88 dated

05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner‟s land

comprised in Khasra No. 1567/2 min measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas in

all in Village Chattarpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. In this case, it has been admitted by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 [Land

Acquisition Collector (South)] that physical possession of the subject land

has not been taken. This is evident from paragraph 7 of the counter-

affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. It is, however,

contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 that the

amount for compensation in respect of the same was deposited in the

treasury, though the same has not been paid to the land owner nor was it

offered to the land owner.

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

second proviso to Section 24(2) of 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 the purpose of the

proviso is for computing the period of five years referred to in Section

24(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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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. 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 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.

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

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

petitioner. 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.

10. As a result the petitioner is 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.

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

order as to costs.

                                          BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J




JANUARY 12, 2015                            SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SU