AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAME,AMOUNT,REMARKS
Hukum Singh,507272.87,Sent to RD
Ram Kaur,169270.35,
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 stateâ€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.,,
Having regard to the facts noted above, 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 the subject land stand",,
lapsed. It is so declared.,,
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.",,
CM. No. 21508/2016,,
In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the application stands disposed of.",,