Delhi High Court
Jagbir Singh & Ors vs Union Of India Through Lac & Anr. on 30 October, 2017
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 30th October, 2017
+ W.P. (C.) No.4603/2015
JAGBIR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Anuroop P.S., Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAC & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate 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 present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the
proceedings in respect of land comprised in Khasra no.1911/882(1-4),
1915/924-925(3-8), 4065/1659(10-0), 2021/956 (7-4) and 979(3-18)
situated in the revenue estate of Village Tughlaqabad, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as the „subject land‟) acquired vide Award
no.50/A/Supp/1969-70 dated 04.11.1981 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. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
predecessors of the petitioners, i.e. Jaswant Singh, Shri Partap Singh
and Shri Mahipal Singh, including the petitioners were co-sharers with
respect to their land situated in Village Tughlaqabad, New Delhi. The
above-said three persons have since expired and the petitioners are the
legal heirs of the said persons, including petitioners no.3 and 4 as well.
3. It is not disputed that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued vide Notification no.F.4(2)/65/L&B
dated 23.01.1965 with respect to the land comprised in Khasra no.
1911/882(1-4), 1915/924-925(3-8), 4065/1659(10-0), 2021/956 (7-4)
and 979(3-18) situated in the revenue estate of Village Tughlaqabad,
New Delhi. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was issued on 13.01.1969 and an Award
no.50/A/Supp/1969-70 was pronounced on 04.11.1981. It is the case
of the petitioners that although the Award was announced way back in
the year 1981, however, the possession of the subject land was not
taken, nor compensation tendered, nor paid to the petitioners. It is also
the case of the petitioners that the amount was not deposited in the
referral court pursuant to the Award. Reliance is placed on Section
24(2) of the New Act, which reads as under:
"24 (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 holding 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."
4. Notice was issued in the matter. Counter affidavits have been filed by
the LAC as also the DDA. Counsel for the LAC submits that the
possession of the subject land was taken and was handed over to the
DDA, copy of the possession has been filed on record.
5. Counsel for the petitioners relies on para 8 of the counter affidavit
filed by the LAC, to show that the compensation has not been paid to
the petitioners.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Para 8 of the
counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:
"8. That it is submitted that the possession of the land bearing
khasra no. 1911/882(1-4), 1915/924-925(3-8),
4065/1659(10-0), 2021/956 (7-4) and 979(3-18) of
village Tuglakabad, was acquired vide award no.
no.50/A/Supp/1969-70 and out of which possession of
khasra no.979(3-18) and 2021/956(7-4) on 24.02.2004
and possession of khasra no.1911/882(1-4) and Kh.
No.1915/1659(10-0) on 16.03.2004 and possession of Kh.
No.4065/1659(10-) on 23.11.1981 and all aforesaid
acquired land was handed over to DDA immediately at
the time of taking possession and as per Naksha
Mutzamin compensation not paid and statement "A" is
not available. A circular dt.02.09.2015 is issued to
relocate the same."
7. It has been contended before us by the counsel for the petitioners that
since the compensation with respect to the subject land has not been
tendered to the petitioners, the case of the petitioners is liable to be
allowed.
8. 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."
9. 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. Sshiv 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) Giri 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 petitioners are entitled to a
declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the subject land are deemed
to have lapsed. It is so declared.
CM.APPL8327/2015(stay)
11. The application stands disposed of in view of the orders passed in the
writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
OCTOBER 30, 2017
pst
