Delhi High Court
Kanta Bahri And Ors vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 February, 2016
$~51 to 56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.02.2016
+ W.P.(C) 6339/2015 & CM 11545/2015
USHA DEVI AND ANR .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 6356/2015 & CM 1156/2015
M/S BAHRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. .... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 6357/2015 & 11565/2015
VIRENDER LAL BAHRI AND ANR .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 6363/2015 & CM 11577/2015
VINOD KUMR KHANNA AND ORS. .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
AND
W.P.(C) No. 6339/2015 & Ors. Page 1 of 10
+ W.P.(C) 6378/2015 & CM 11606/2015
KANTA BAHRI AND ORS .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 6490/2015 & CM 11809/2015
M/S B.M. PROPERTIES AND ANR .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr D.V. Khatri
For the Respondent UOI : Mr Jasmeet Singh
For the Respondent DDA :Ms Mrinalini Sen with Ms Mrinmoi Chatterjee
in WPC Nos. 6357/2015, 6378/ 2015,
6490/2015.
:Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal in WPC Nos.
6339/2015, 6356/2015, 6363/2015.
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This batch of writ petitions has been filed invoking the proviso in
section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the 2013 Act'). The acquisition proceedings were initiated
by a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act'). Those proceedings culminated
in an award being Award No. 8/2008-09 dated 16.02.2009. The
petitioners' lands are comprised in khasra nos.:-
Petitioners Case No. Khasra Nos.
1.Smt Usha Devi & WPC No. 6339/2015 24//1 (2-15)
Anr. 7 (6-17)
8 (4-16)
9 (4-16)
10 min (2-09)
---------
21-13
---------
2. M/s Bahri Properties WPC No. 6356/2015 22//8 (0-19)
Pvt. Ltd. 13 (0-16)
26//3 (3-16)
24//4min (0-10)
10 min (2-16)
12 (4-16)
19 (4-16)
22 (4-12)
30 (0- 1)
----------
23-02
----------
3. Sh. Virender Lal WPC No. 6357/2015 22//23 (1-04)
Bahri & Anr. 24 min (4-01)
27 (0-08)
---------
5-13
-------
4. Sh. Vinod Kumar WPC No. 6363/2015 37//26 min (9-13)
Khanna & Ors. 38//4 (3-14)
5 (3-18)
6 (4-16)
7 (4-11)
8 (4-12)
9 (4-12)
10 (4-12)
11 (4-16)
12 (4-12)
13 (4-16)
14 (4-15)
15 min (4-08)
27 (0-14)
28 (0-10)
29 (0-04)
30 (0-04)
39//14 (3-12)
15 (4-16)
17 (2-27)
6 (2-01)
7 (0-16)
---------
79-19
---------
5. Smt Kanta Bahri & WPC No. 6378/2015 22//22 min (1-15)
Ors. 23 (3-7)
24//1 min (0-06)
2 (3-12)
3 (4-09)
4 min (5-03)
26 (1-00)
27 (0-12)
--------
20-04
--------
6. M/s B.M.Properties WPC No. 6490/2015 22//17 (3-3)
& Anr. 18 (6-1)
22 min (2-16)
---------
12-0
---------
Total 162-11
The total extent of the petitioners' lands is 162 bighas 11 biswas in
village Bakoli, Delhi. The total acquisition as reflected in the award was
in respect of 304 bighas 17 biswas of land. It is, therefore, the case of the
petitioners in this batch of writ petitions that they represent the majority
of the land holdings being 162 bighas 11 biswas out of 304 bighas 17
biswas. It is also the case of the petitioners that compensation has not
been paid to them. This is admitted by the Land Acquisition Collector.
2. Section 24 of the 2013 Act reads as under:-
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be
deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1
of 1894),-
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said
Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all
provisions of this Act relating to the determination
of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been
made, then such proceedings shall continue under
the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if
the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the
said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the
land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid
the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with
the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation
in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited
in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries
specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of
the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation
in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
3. The issue with regard to the said proviso after section 24(2) came
up for consideration before this court in Tarun Pal Singh & Anr. v. Lt.
Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.: WP(C) 8596/2014, and other
connected matters, which was decided on 21.05.2015. In that case, this
court held as under:-
"7. It is, therefore, clear that in those cases where the
Awards have been made more than five years prior to the
commencement of the Act, section 24(2) would have
applicability, subject to the other conditions being
fulfilled. But, in cases where the Awards have been made
within five years of the commencement of the 2013 Act,
section 24(2) would not apply. It is also clear that once
the conditions of section 24(2) are met, the acquisition
itself lapses and therefore no occasion would arise for
invoking the first proviso which is set out after section
24(2). This is so because the first proviso entails a
situation where the acquisition is saved but the
compensation is awarded under the 2013 Act. The
proviso cannot blow life into the acquisition which has
lapsed under the main provision of sub-section (2) of
Section 24 of the 2013 Act. It is for this reason that we
think that the first proviso which has been placed after
section 24(2) is not really a proviso to section 24(2) but,
a proviso to Section 24(1)(b). The said first proviso and
Section 24(1)(b) can easily be read together. Section
24(1)(b) in effect relates to all cases where awards have
been under the 1894 Act except those which are covered
under Section 24(2). Clearly, awards made less than five
years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act would
fall under Section 24(1)(b). As such, the general rule in
such cases is that the provisions of the 1894 Act would
continue to be applicable, as if the 1894 Act had not been
repealed. However, the said first proviso carved out an
exception to this general rule by providing that in cases
where compensation in respect of a majority of land
holdings has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the
notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894
Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with
the provisions of the 2013 Act. This is a provision for the
benefit of landowners inasmuch as even in cases of
completed acquisitions, if the conditions stipulated under
the said first proviso stand satisfied, the compensation
would have to be provided under the more beneficial
provisions of the 2013 Act.
8. Thus, while the said first proviso can harmoniously
exist when read as a proviso to Section 24(1)(b), it cannot
so exist when sought to be read as a proviso to Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act."
4. It is pertinent to point out that the reference to the 'first' proviso is
a reference to the proviso in question as the 'second' proviso which had
been introduced through an Ordinance is no longer in the statute book as
the Ordinance itself lapsed. It is, therefore, clear from the said decision
that the said proviso is actually a proviso to section 24(1)(b) of the 2013
Act and is not a proviso to section 24(2). Thus, for the purposes of this
batch of petitions, it has to be seen as to whether the award under the
1894 Act was passed beyond five years prior to the commencement of the
2013 Act or was within the period of five years. In the present case the
award was made on 16.02.2009 which is clearly within five years prior to
the commencement of the 2013 Act (i.e.,01.01.2014) and, therefore,
section 24(2) would have no application. On the other hand, Section
24(1)(b) would clearly apply. The proviso to section 24(1)(b), as already
interpreted above, would apply in a case where the award having been
made, compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not
been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries. In such eventuality all
the beneficiaries of lands specified in the notification for acquisition
under section 4 of the 1894 Act would be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In the present case, it is
absolutely clear that the petitioners in this batch of petitions have not
been paid compensation and they represent the majority of the land
holdings. Therefore, the proviso gets triggered. As a result of which, the
petitioners as also the other beneficiaries under the same acquisition,
would be entitled to compensation in accordance with the 2013 Act.
5. Before parting with this batch of petitions, we would like to put on
record the stand of the DDA. The learned counsel for the DDA, referring
to his affidavit on behalf of DDA, submitted that compensation on the
part of the DDA had been handed over to the Land Acquisition Collector
and it is the Land Acquisition Collector who ought to have paid the
compensation to the petitioners. The fact that the Land Acquisition
Collector did not pay the compensation to the petitioners should not result
in any further burden on the DDA. We are not entering into this arena of
dispute and it is for two the agencies to sort out the same. Insofar as the
petitioners are concerned, they are entitled to compensation under the
2013 Act and we direct the respondents to pay the petitioners
compensation in terms of the 2013 Act, as expeditiously as possible,
irrespective of the inter se dispute between the Land Acquisition
Collector and the DDA.
6. The writ petitions are allowed as above.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2016 R.K. GAUBA, J
kb
