Delhi High Court
Krishan Kumar & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 November, 2017
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 01st November, 2017
+ W.P. (C.) No.1305/2015
KRISHAN KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Anuj Kumar Garg, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel,
for L&B/LAC.
Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking a direction and declaration that the
land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra no.155/2 measuring 3
bigha and 12 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village
Molarband, New Delhi and the acquisition proceedings be declared as
having lapsed in view 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 „New Act‟).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the
petitioner is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court
in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at 2014 3 SCC 183. Counsel
further submits that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to the subject land was issued on
04.04.1964, Section 6 Notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was issued on 07.12.1966 and an Award was made on 19.10.1981. It
is the case of the petitioners that no compensation was tendered in
favour of the petitioners. Thus, the acquisition proceedings shall be
deemed to have lapsed.
3. Learned counsel for the LAC submits that the possession of the land in
question has already been taken, however, the compensation of the
land could not be paid to the recorded owners and is lying deposited in
the Revenue Deposit(RD) since 30.01.1982.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We deem it
appropriate to reproduce para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the
LAC, which reads as under:
"4. That it is submitted that the lands of village
Molarband were notified vide Notification under section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act dated 4.4.1964 which was followed
by Notification under section 6 of the said Act vide
Notification dated 7.12.1966. That the then Land Acquisition
Collector passed an Award bearing No.1934-D dated 19..10.81
and the possession of the land falling in subject khasra number
was taken on 10.04.1997 after preparing Possession
Proceeding on the spot, the same was handed over to the
beneficiary department i.e. DDA immediately. The
compensation of the land under reference however could not
be paid to the recorded owners and is lying deposited in RD on
30.1.82. It is submitted that the petitioners are also admitting
that the government has taken the actual vacant physical
possession of the subject land falling in khasra number
155/2(3-12) as there is no averment in the writ petition
regarding having possession of the petitioners. The petitioners
have raised grievance of non-payment of compensation only."
5. The reading of para 4 above would show that the compensation with
respect to the land in question was not tendered to the petitioners but
deposited in the Revenue Deposit.
6. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.(supra), in para 17
it was held as under:
"17. While enacting Section 24(2), Parliament definitely had
in its view Section 31 of the 1894 Act. From that one thing is
clear that it did not intend to equate the word "paid" to
"offered" or "tendered". But at the same time, we do not think
that by use of the word "paid", Parliament intended receipt of
compensation by the landowners/persons interested. In our
view, it is not appropriate to give a literal construction to the
expression "paid" used in this sub-section (sub-section (2)
of Section 24). If a literal construction were to be given, then it
would amount to ignoring procedure, mode and manner of
deposit provided in Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act in the event
of happening of any of the contingencies contemplated therein
which may prevent the Collector from making actual payment
of compensation. We are of the view, therefore, that for the
purposes of Section 24(2), the 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 reference under Section 18 can be made on
happening of any of the contingencies contemplated
under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. In other words, the
compensation may be said to have been "paid" within the
meaning of Section 31(2) when the Collector (or for that
matter Land Acquisition Officer) has discharged his obligation
and deposited the amount of compensation in court and made
that amount available to the interested person to be dealt with
as provided in Sections 32 and 33".
7. Relying on the law laid down to the facts of the present case, we are of
the view that the amount of compensation was not tendered to the
petitioners in accordance with law.
8. Resultantly, the petitioners must succeed only to the extent of payment
of compensation as per the Act of 2013. We make it clear that since
the possession of the land has been taken over on 10.04.1997 and put
to use, the petitioners, as prayed, would be entitled to compensation
which will be paid within a period of not later than one year.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of. No orders as to costs.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
NOVEMBER 01, 2017
pst
