Delhi High Court
Ram Phal And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 November, 2017
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 06th November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 4198/2015
RAM PHAL AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.B.S. Mathur, Ms.Aditi & Mr.
Rajat Mathur, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Hem Kumar, Adv.
for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for
L&B/LAC.
Mr. Dev P.Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, the petitioners seek a direction to declare the entire acquisition
proceedings in respect of land of the petitioners total measuring 20 bighas 17
biswas comprised in Khasra No.64/19 (6-15), 64/21 (5-12), 65/25 (0-1), 66/5
(0-7), 67/1 (4-12), 10 (2-17), 11 (0-13), situated in revenue estate of village
Karala, Delhi under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 to have lapsed in view
Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as 'New Act'). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in
this case two notifications under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 were issued on 25.08.2005 & 10.07.2006 respectively and award was
made on 26.05.2008. It is the case of the petitioners that neither possession
of the subject land was taken nor compensation has been paid.
2. Counter affidavits have been filed. As per counter affidavits, a
categorical stand has been taken that the compensation stands paid to
Bhagwan Singh but not to the legal heirs of Kishan Chand (the present
petitioner).
3. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at 2014 3 SCC 183, the Supreme Court
of India in paras 14 to 20 held as under:
"14. Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon the
Collector, on making an award under Section 11, to tender
payment of compensation to persons interested entitled
thereto according to award. It further mandates the
Collector to make payment of compensation to them unless
prevented by one of the contingencies contemplated in sub-
section (2). The contingencies contemplated in Section
31(2) are: (i) the persons interested entitled to
compensation do not consent to receive it (ii) there is no
person competent to alienate the land and (iii) there is
dispute as to the title to receive compensation or as to the
apportionment of it. If due to any of the contingencies
contemplated in Section 31(2), the Collector is prevented
from making payment of compensation to the persons
interested who are entitled to compensation, then the
Collector is required to deposit the compensation in the
court to which reference under Section 18 may be made.
15. Simply put, Section 31 of the 1894 Act makes provision
for payment of compensation or deposit of the same in the
court. This provision requires that the Collector should
tender payment of compensation as awarded by him to the
persons interested who are entitled to compensation. If due
to happening of any contingency as contemplated in Section
31(2), the compensation has not been paid, the Collector
should deposit the amount of compensation in the court to
which reference can be made under Section 18.
16. The mandatory nature of the provision in Section
31(2) with regard to deposit of the compensation in the
court is further fortified by the provisions contained
in Sections 32, 33 and 34. As a matter of fact, Section
33 gives power to the court, on an application by a person
interested or claiming an interest in such money, to pass an
order to invest the amount so deposited in such government
or other approved securities and may direct the interest or
other proceeds of any such investment to be accumulated
and paid in such manner as it may consider proper so that
the parties interested therein may have the benefit therefrom
as they might have had from the land in respect whereof
such money shall have been deposited or as near thereto as
may be.
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 24(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.
18. 1894 Act being an expropriatory legislation has to be
strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner for
payment of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections
31-34) of the 1894 Act. The Collector, with regard to the
payment of compensation, can only act in the manner so
provided. It is settled proposition of law (classic statement
of Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad[1]) that where a power is
given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must
be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of
performance are necessarily forbidden.
19. Now, this is admitted position that award was made on
31.01.2008. Notices were issued to the landowners to
receive the compensation and since they did not receive the
compensation, the amount (Rs.27 crores) was deposited in
the government treasury. Can it be said that deposit of the
amount of compensation in the government treasury is
equivalent to the amount of compensation paid to the
landowners/persons interested? We do not think so. In a
comparatively recent decision, this Court in Agnelo
Santimano Fernandes[2], relying upon the earlier decision
in Prem Nath Kapur[3], has held that the deposit of the
amount of the compensation in the state's revenue account
is of no avail and the liability of the state to pay interest
subsists till the amount has not been deposited in court.
20. From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining to
the subject land has been made by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position
that compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the
landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court.
The deposit of compensation amount in the government
treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent
to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested.
We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject
land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act."
4. That apart the aforesaid position of law has been reiterated in
the cases of :
(i) Union of India and Ors. v. Shiv Raj and Ors. (2014)
6SCC 564;
(ii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors. Civil Appeal No.8700/2013 decided
on 10.09.2014;
(iii) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(iv) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
5. In the case in hand the award having been announced more than
five years prior to the commencement of the Act 2013, neither the
possession has been taken nor compensation paid, the petitioners are
entitled to declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under
the 1894 Act, in respect of the subject land deemed to have lapsed.
Ordered accordingly.
6. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
CM No.7599/2015
7. The interim order dated 28.04.2015 is confirmed.
8. Application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2017/ck
