Delhi High Court
Nathi Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 January, 2018
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment :22nd January, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11183/2015
NATHI SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Arun Kumar Kaushik, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with
Mr.Santosh Prasad Chaurasiya, G.P.
for R-1/UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for
L&B/LAC.
Mr.Pawan Mathur, Adv. for 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 Constitution of India filed by
the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings
with respect to ½ share in Khasra nos.267/1 (0-13), 266/2(1-6), 306/8
(1-7) total measuring 3 bighas 6 biswas, ¼ share in Khasra nos.274(5-
3), 254(1-5), 257(0-19), 258(4-2), 226(7-3), 292 (9-2), 227 (0-8) total
measuring 28 bighas 2 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village
Khizrabad, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
„subject land‟) stand lapsed in view of section 24(2) of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
W.P. (C) No.11183/2015
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as „2013 Act‟) as
compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.
2. In this case, a notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as „Act‟) was issued on 05.07.1973 and a
declaration under section 6 was made on 31.01.1976. Thereafter, an
award bearing no.75/1986-87 was passed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the
counter affidavit filed by LAC in support of his submission that the
compensation has not been tendered. It is contended that as per para 4
of counter affidavit filed by LAC, the compensation was sent to 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.
4. Counsel for LAC submits that nobody turned up to claim
compensation. As such, the compensation was sent to RD.
5. Mr.Mathur, learned counsel for DDA submits that part of the land has
been transferred to horticulture department and part has been
transferred to PWD.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Para 4 of the counter
affidavit filed by LAC reads as under :-
"4. That it is submitted that the lands of village
Khirzrabad were notified vide Notification under section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 5.7.1973 which was
followed by Notification under section 6 of the said Act
vide Notification dated 31.1.1976. That the then Land
Acquisition Collector passed an Awarad No.75/86-87
and the physical possession of the subject land falling in
khasra number was duly taken on the spot on 22.9.1986
W.P. (C) No.11183/2015
by preparing Possession Proceeding on the spot and was
handed over to the beneficiary department i.e. DDA
immediately. The compensation was sent to Revenue
Deposit as nobody turned up to claim compensation. The
petitioner is claiming half share in the subject land."
7. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by LAC would show that the
compensation was sent to RD. As the amount of compensation was
not tendered to the petitioner, in our view, 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
W.P. (C) No.11183/2015
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
W.P. (C) No.11183/2015
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
W.P. (C) No.11183/2015
acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act."
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 in
Pune Municipal Corporation & another (supra), stand satisfied.
9. Since the award having been announced more than five years prior to
the commencement of the 2013 Act and 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.
10. The writ petition is disposed of.
C.M. APPL 29098/2015
The application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the
writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
JANUARY 22, 2018/ck
W.P. (C) No.11183/2015
