Delhi High Court
Chhatar Pal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 November, 2017
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 15th November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10455/2015
CHHATAR PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Raghuvinder Verma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for L&B/LAC.
Mr.Rajesh Kumar with Mr.Nikhil
Kumar, Advs. for R-1.
Ms.Renuka Arora with Mr.Sumit
Rana, Advs. for R-5/DSIIDC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to land comprised in plots no.5, 10, 43A and
44 measuring 200 sq. yds. of total land measuring 800 sq. yds. out of
Khasra no.40/19 (4-4), situated in the revenue estate of village Karala,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject land'), to have lapsed in
view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement
Act, 2013 as neither compensation has been paid nor possession has
been taken over.
2. Counsel appearing for LAC relies on para 4 of its counter affidavit.
She submits that possession of the subject land has been taken and
handed over to DSIIDC. However, compensation could not be paid as
the original owner did not turn up to collect the same.
3. Mr.Verma placing reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.
V. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183
submits that it was the duty and responsibility of LAC to tender the
compensation, which has not been done in the present case. As such
the acquisition proceedings would stand lapsed.
4. Counsel appearing for DSIIDC also disputes the fact that the
possession is with the petitioner.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Para 4 of counter
affidavit filed by LAC reads as under :-
"4. That the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as the actual vacant physical possession of the
total subject lands measuring 04-04 falling in khasra
number 40//19 in village Karala was duly taken on
29.7.2008 on the spot and handed over to the requisition
agency i.e. DSIIDC. It is submitted that the ownership of
the subject land lies with Sardar Singh S/o Kanhaiya who
never turned up receive the compensation and /or the
SRP as the objections were filed by one Pyara Singh,
Param Jeet Kaur W/o Pyara Singh and some others
persons. The present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed as the petitioner has been claiming the rights
over the subject land through different GPA executed
during different period and which gives no description of
specific measurement out of the subject khasra number
as at times, the khasra numbers are more than the subject
khasra number but the measurement is combined without
any bifurcation between the different khasra numbers."
6. Reading of counter affidavit makes it clear that the compensation has
not been tendered. We are of the view that the case of the petitioner
would be covered by the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation &
Anr. V. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183,
more particularly, paragraphs 14 to 20 of the judgment, which read 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
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, 33and 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."
7. Counsel for the parties submit that an identical issue had arisen before
another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Solanki
Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors, W.P. (C) 1999/2015,
decided on 24.01.2017, paragraph 5 reads as under:-
"5. While we have declared that the subject
acquisition has lapsed, it is made clear that this would not
amount to giving title to the petitioner or perfecting the
petitioner's title inasmuch as Mr.Jain has taken the plea in
the counter-affidavit filed on behalf o the respondent no.2
that the Gaon Sabha has been shown as the recorded
owner. This fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. But, we are not entering into the controversy of
title which may be sorted out elsewhere. Insofar as the
acquisition is concerned, the same has lapsed because
neither physical possession was taken over nor
compensation was paid."
8. Having regard to the submissions made and taking into consideration
the stand of LAC, we hold that the acquisition proceedings with
respect to the subject land stand lapsed. As far as the plea of
possession is concerned, we leave the question open to be decided in
appropriate proceedings.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
C.M.APPL 10455/2015
10. Application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
ck
