Dewan Chand Pruthi vs Union Of India & Ors

G. S. Sistani, J

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings are liable to lapse with respect

to the land bearing Khasra No. 1566 admeasuring 4 Bigha and 16 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New

Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Subject Land’), 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 neither the compensation has been paid nor

possession has been taken.

In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 25.11.1980

followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act made on 07.06.1985 and an award No. 14/87-89 was made on 26.05.1987.

The attention of this Court has drawn to the counter affidavit filed by LAC as per which neither possession of the subject land was taken nor the

compensation has been tendered to the petitioner but sent in RD. While relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Pune Municipal

Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since

compensation was not tendered to the petitioner, the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner would stand lapsed.

Learned counsel appearing for the LAC has drawn the attention of this Court to para 8 of the counter affidavit. It is fairly submitted that

compensation has been sent to the Revenue Deposit. Para 8 of the counter affidavit reads as under:

“That in the present case, since the Hon’ble High Court had granted stay against to dispossession therefore the possession of the land in

question was not taken, however, the compensation with respect to the above said land was sent in RD.â€​

We have heard the counsels for the parties and considered their rival contentions and have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.

Taking into consideration the fact that the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner, the case of the petitioner would be covered with

the decision rendered by the Apex court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (Supra), wherein it has been held in 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.

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.

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.

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 “tenderedâ€. But at the same time, we do not think that by use of the word “paidâ€, 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.

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.

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.

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.â€​

Having regard to the submissions made and the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit that the compensation has not been tendered to the

petitioner, 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 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.

Applying the law laid down to the facts of the present case, since the award having been announced more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act and, having regard to the fact that the compensation has not been tendered, 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.

CM APPL. No. 2502/2016

The application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petition.