Delhi High Court
Vikram Singh vs Government Of National Capital ... on 28 November, 2017
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 28th November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2297/2016
VIKRAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Deepika V. Marwaha, Mr.Vinay
K.Shailendra and Ms.Worthing Kasar,
Advocates
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing counsel for
LAC/L&B with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner
measuring 1 bigha and 6 biswas out of 16 bighas and 4 biswas (being
27/72 shares in 43 bighas and 4 biswas) falling in Khasra nos. 1269 (4-
16), 1272 (4-16), 1273 (4-16), 1284 (4-16), 1285 (4-16), 1286 (4-16),
1287 (4-16) 1288(4-16), 1292 (4-16) having possession of land in
Khasra no. 1269 (4-16 ), situated in the revenue estate of village
Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, New Delhi-110070(hereinafter referred to
as the "subject land") would stand 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. Ms. Marwaha submits that a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued
on 27th June, 1996. A notification under Section 6 of the Act was
issued on 10.01.1997. Thereafter, an Award no.2/1998-99 was made
on 07.01.1999.
3. The learned counsel submits that paper possession was taken with
respect to a part of the land. However, the actual physical possession of
the entire area continues to remain with the petitioner, besides no
compensation has been paid. Learned counsel relies on the para 5 of
the counter affidavit filed by the LAC in support of her submission that
neither compensation has been paid nor possession has been taken.
4. The learned counsel for the LAC submits that the possession of the land
has been taken, however, the compensation has not been paid. He
submits that the physical possession could not be taken on account of
stay having been granted in various petitions.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Para 5 of the counter affidavit,
which reflects the stand taken by the LAC, as under:
"5. That as per record the status of the land of the
petitioner mention in the writ petition is detail as below:
Khas ra Notification Notification Award Date of Details of Stay in Delhi
No. u/s 4 of LA u/s 6 of LA No. possession compens ation High Court
Act Act
1269 (4- F.9(12)/95/ F.9(12)/95/ 02/98- Possession Not received Kh. No.
16), L&b/LA/974 L&b/LA/104 99 not Taken from 1269(4-16)
3 Dated 6 Dated village requisitioning stay vide WPC
27/06/96 10/01/97 Rangpur Department. No. 4431/15,
i Dated Hence not 1607/16,
07/01/9 paid. 1703/16,
9 1679/16.
Do Do Do Possession Not received Kh. No. 1287
1284 (4- not taken from (4-16), 1284
16), 1285 requisitioning (4-16),
(4-16), department. 1285(4-16),
1286(4-16), Hence not 1286 (4-16),
1287(4-16) paid. stay vide WPC
No. 4431/15,
1568/16,
1607/16,
1703/16 &
1679/16.
1288(4-16) Do Do Do Possession Not received
not taken from Kh. No. 1288
requisitioning stay vide WPC
department. No. 1609/16,
Hence not 4431/15,
paid. 1607/16,
1568/16,
1679/16.
1292 (4-16) Do Do Do Possession Not received Kh. No. 1292
not taken from (4-16) stay
requisitioning vide WPC No.
department. 4431/15,
Hence not 1607/16,
paid. 1703/16,
1679/16,
1568/15,
1607/16 &
1703/16.
1272 (4-16) Do Do Do Possession Do
& 1273 (4- taken on
16) 31/12/13 _
7. A careful reading of para 5 would show the details with regard to
issuing notifications, Award number and the endorsement regarding
possession not having taken for the reasons stated therein have been
reflected. The counter affidavit also shows that the amount of
compensation was not tendered as the compensation was not received
from the requisitioning department.
8. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision rendered by
the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
& Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3
SCC 183. Paras 14 to 20 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 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."
9. In view of the submissions made and the stand taken by the LAC in
their counter affidavit, we are of the considered view that the necessary
ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the New Act as has
been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India and this Court in the
following cases stand satisfied:
(1) Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183;
(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors., reported at
(2014) 6 SCC 564;
(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors, Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided on
10.09.2014;
(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others,
W.P.(C).2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors;
W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
10. In view of the discussion above, the petitioner is entitled to a
declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the subject land are deemed to
have lapsed. It is so declared.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of.
CM.APPL 9909/2016(stay)
12. The interim order dated 02.05.2016 is confirmed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
NOVEMBER 28, 2017/rb
