Delhi High Court
Uma Mehra vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 January, 2018
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment :16th January, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11/2015
UMA MEHRA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Nitin Mishra with Mr.Gaurav
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Chiranjeev Kumar with Mr.
Mukesh Sachdeva,Advs. for R-1/UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for
L&B/LAC.
Mr.Arjun Pant, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that inadvertently
Khasra no.116 has been mentioned in the writ petition, he restricts his
prayer to Khasra no.115, measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas and Khasra
no.117, measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas, situated in the revenue
estate of village Sayoorpur, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the „subject land‟).
2. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by
the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings
with respect to the subject land stand lapsed in view of section 24(2)
of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
W.P. (C) No.11/2015
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
„2013 Act‟) as compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.
3. In this case, a notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as „Act‟) was issued on 25.11.1980 and a
declaration under section 6 was made on 20.05.1987. Thereafter, an
award bearing no.10-87-88 was passed on 14.07.1987.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the
counter affidavit filed by LAC wherein it has been categorically stated
that the compensation has been sent in RD. Counsel further submits
that since the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner, the
case of the petitioner would be fully covered by Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors.,
reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183.
5. Mr.Jain, learned counsel for LAC submits that the possession of the
subject land was taken on 14.07.1987. Para 7 of counter affidavit filed
by LAC reads as under :-
"7. That it is submitted that the lands of village
Sayoorpur were notified vide Notification under section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 25.11.1980
which was followed by the Notification under section 6
of the Act dated 15.5.1985. The Award was also passed
vide Award No.10/87-88 dated 19.5.87 and the
possession of the lands were taken on 14.7.1987 and
further handed over to the requisition agency i.e. DDA on
the spot, the very same day after preparing necessary
documents such as Possession Proceedings. It is
submitted that the compensation for Khasra Nos.115 and
117 has been sent in RD, whereas, the compensation for
Khasra No.116 was deposited in Court in CM (M)
No.1407/2013."
W.P. (C) No.11/2015
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Taking into
consideration the submissions made and the categorical assertion
made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC that the compensation was
sent to RD, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is fully
covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation & another (supra), wherein, it has been
held in paras 14 to 20 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
W.P. (C) No.11/2015
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.
W.P. (C) No.11/2015
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."
W.P. (C) No.11/2015
7. Mr.Jain has also raised objection with regard to maintainability of the
present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is a subsequent
purchaser. We find the objection to be misplaced on account of
decision rendered in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav
Dharma Trust and another, reported in 2017 (6) SCC 751, para 28 of
which, reads as under:-
"28. Thus, the subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the
successor in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc.,
are all persons who are interested in
compensation/landowners/ affected persons in terms of
the 2013 Act and such persons are entitled to file a case
for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings
have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act. It is a declaration qua the land wherein
indisputably they have an interest and they are affected
by such acquisition. For such a declaration, it cannot be
said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any
locus standi."
8. Taking into consideration the submissions made and the stand taken
by the LAC in the counter affidavit, 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, stand
satisfied.
9. Since the award having been announced more than five years prior to
the commencement of the 2013 Act and, having regard to the stand
taken by the LAC that the compensation has not been tendered to the
petitioner, 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 ordered
accordingly.
W.P. (C) No.11/2015
10. The writ petition is disposed of.
C.M. APPL 25/2015
The application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the
writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
JANUARY 16, 2018/ck/
W.P. (C) No.11/2015
