Indraj And Ors vs Land Acquisition Collector And Anr.

G.S.Sistani, J

With the consent of the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land comprised in Khasra no. 170 (0-4), 315 (4-

16), 316 (1-10), 317 (6-0) measuring 12 bighas 10 biswas in which the petitioners have 1/12 share and land comprised in Khasra No. 213 (4-12), 214/1

(0-17), 214 (4-14), 217 (4-16), 218 (4-16), 237/2 (3-18), 271 (4-16), 302 (4-16), 303 (4-16) measuring 38 Bighas and 1 Biswas, in which petitioners

have 1/3 share situated in the revenue estate of village-Kotla Maigiran, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’), are deemed to

have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 as neither compensation has been paid nor possession has been taken over.

The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on

6th April, 1964, a notification under Section 6 was made on 7th December, 1966 and thereafter Award 205/1986-87 was announced on 19th

September, 1986. Counsel for the petitioners submits as the possession of the subject land has not been taken nor compensation paid, the case of the

petitioners fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Harak Chand

Misirimal Solanki & Ors(2014) 3 SCC 183 and other decisions as detailed below to submit that the acquisition proceedings would lapse:

(1) Union of India and Ors v. Sshiv Raj and Ors., reported at (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others, W.P.(C).2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(4) Giri Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors; W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for the respondent / LAC has drawn the attention of this court to the counter-affidavit filed more particularly

paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit as per which possession of the land has been taken over on different dates. Mr. Jain further contends that no

compensation has been paid to the petitioners although compensation has been paid to some of the co-owners. Counsel for the DDA submits that the

possession of the land has been taken, however the land has not been put to use. Mr. Sada Shiv, Dy. Director, (New Lease-I), DDA, who is present

in the Court submits that the photographs filed by him with the additional affidavit would show that the steel and other equipments which were lying,

were in fact stacked by the DMRC during their construction, but the land in question has not been put to use.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The basic facts are not disputed as far as the issuance of notification under Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on

6th April, 1964, a notification under Section 6 was made on 7th December, 1966 and thereafter Award 205/1986-87 was announced on 19th

September, 1986. Para 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent LAC reads as under:

“8.That the land in question, i.e., Khasra no. 170 (0-4), 315 (4-16), 316 (1-10), 317 (6-0) ad-measuring 12 bighas and 10 biswas

(having 1/12 share) and land comprised in Khasra No. 213 (4-12), 214/1 (0-17), 214 (4-14), 217 (4-16), 218 (4-16), 237/2 (3-18), 271 (4-

16), 302 (4-16), 303 (4-16) total 38 Bighas and 1 Biswas (having 1/3rd share), situated in the revenue estate of village-Kotla Maigiran,

New Delhi was notified under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act on 06.04.1964 followed by declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition

Act on 07.12.1966 for Planned Development of Delhi. In pursuance of said notification, notices under Section 9 & 10 as provided under

the Act, were issued to the interested persons, inviting the claims from all the interested personas and claims were also filed by the interested

persons. The then Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No. 205/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 after considering the claims of the

claimants. Further, possession of all the above mentioned land were taken on various dates i.e. 4.12.1986, 17.07.1987, 12.12.1996 and

05.03.1997 and handed over by the beneficiary department. That part payment of the compensation with respect to Khasra No. 170, 315,

316 and 317 has been given to Sh. Bijender Kumar, Narender, Vinod Kumar, R. Kumar, Lekh Chand, Khem Chand, R. Singh, Harnam

Singh, Rattan Singh, Mahesh Singh and compensation with respect to remaining lands were not made. â€​

The reading of the counter-affidavit filed by the LAC clearly shows that possession of the land in question has been taken, however, compensation

has not been paid to the petitioners. 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.

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, 33and 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.

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

(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.

In view of the discussion above, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to their share in the subject

land as detailed in Para 1 of the judgment stand lapsed. It is so declared.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.