Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar And Ors vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 5 February, 2018
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 05th February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1034/2016
SATISH KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Aditya Singh, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocate for
respondent nos.1 & 2/LAC & L&B
Department.
Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel with Mr.Hem Kumar and
Ms.Simmee Kumari, Advocates for
respondent/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed
by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners comprised in
Khasra No.1413(old)-857(new) (0-12), Khasra No.1416(old)-
861(new) (1-6), Khasra No.1493(old)-936 (new) (0-19) total
admeasuring 2 bigha 17 biswas situated in the revenue estate of
village Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the subject
land‟) 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 „2013 Act‟), as
the physical possession of the subject land has been taken but the
compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.
2. In this case, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued on
13.11.1959, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on
07.12.1966, 23.12.1968 & 02.01.1969 and two Awards bearing
Nos.43-A/1981-82 and 83/1982-83 were rendered. Counsel for the
petitioner submits that he is in actual physical possession of subject
land. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by a
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, as the compensation has not been paid
to the petitioners.
3. As per counter affidavit filed by the LAC, the possession of the
subject land has been taken over but the compensation has been sent to
RD. Para 7 of the counter affidavit reads as under:
"7. That in the present case, the possession of the above
mentioned lands was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary
department on 09.03.1983, 14.02.1983 and 25.03.1983 for Khasra
numbers 1413, 1416 and 1493 respectively. The status of
compensation as per statement-A with respect to the above said land is
as under:-
Khasra NAME AWARD AMOUNT REMARKS
no. NO.
(Old) 1493 Bhola Ram 83/82-83 2476.54
(new) 936 Santosh 83/82-83 619.13
(0-19) Kumar Sent in RD
Shyam 83/82-83 619.13
Sunder
Rakesh 83/82-83 619.13
Kumar
Sanjeev 83/82-83 619.14
Kumar
Khasra NAME AWARD AMOUNT REMARKS
no. NO.
(Old) Bhola Ram 60/82-83 3353.21 Sent in RD
1416 Bal Kishan 60/82-83 3353.22
(new) 861
(1-6)
Khasra NAME AWARD AMOUNT REMARKS
no. NO.
(Old) 1413 Bhola Ram 43 A/81-82 19430.39
(new) 857 Satish 43 A/81-82 485.84
(0-12) Kumar
Shyam 43 A/81-82 485.84
Sunder Sent in RD
Mukesh 43 A/81-82 485.85
Kumar
Sanjeev 43 A/81-82 485.85
Kumar
".
4. Counsel for the DDA submits that the possession has been taken.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
6. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.(supra), in paras
14 to 20, it was 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."
7. Having regard to the submissions made, stand taken by the LAC in the
counter affidavit and more particularly para 7 of the counter affidavit
which is extracted above, it leaves no room for doubt that
compensation has not been paid to the petitioners, we are of the
considered view that the necessary ingredients for the application of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as has been interpreted by the Supreme
Court of India and this Court stand satisfied.
8. Since, the award having been announced more than five years prior to
the commencement of the 2013 Act, the petitioners are entitled to
declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject
land are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of.
CM No.4506/2016 (stay)
The application stands disposed of, in view of order passed in the writ
petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2018
ssc
