Neena Wadhwa vs Union Of India And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 5343 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 28.07.2015
+       W.P.(C) 6706/2014

NEENA WADHWA                                                      ... Petitioner
                                            versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                            ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     :   Mr Ateev Mathur with Ms Richa Oberoi
For the Respondent No.1                :   Mr Anil Soni with Mr Naginder Benipal
For the Respondent No.2                :   Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No.3                :   Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr Himanshu Gupta

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

                                       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. 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. 42/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was

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

Nos. 662/1 (1-2), 662/2 (3-14), 664 min (4-3) measuring 8 Bighas and 19

Biswas in all in village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. Although the Land Acquisition Collector has stated that possession of

the subject land was taken, it is evident from the order of this Court dated

08.03.2010 in WP(C) 14769/2006 that possession had not been taken. The

respondents also contended that the amount of compensation was deposited

in the treasury, although the same had not been paid to the land owner nor

was it offered to her.

3. 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,

2015 (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 designated account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded."

(underlining added)

4. 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 designated account maintained for this purpose.

5. 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

designated 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.

6. 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

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

where possession has been taken. In the present case, 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 designated account

maintained for such purposes.

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

of the Ordinance of 2014 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 same would

apply to the said Ordinance of 2015. The rights vested in the petitioner 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.

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 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 designated 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


JULY 28, 2015                              SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR