AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Counter affidavit is handed over in Court. The same is taken on record. Copy of counter affidavit has been supplied to counsel for the
petitioners.
With consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.
This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with
respect to 19/89th share of the petitioners in land comprised in Khasra no.166, Khatoni no.249/75, measuring 4 bighas 9 biswas, situated in the
revenue estate of village Siraspur, 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 and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ""2013 Act"") as
compensation has not been tendered to the petitioners although possession has been taken.
In this case, a notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (""the Act"" in short) was issued on 09.02.1989 and a declaration under
sections 6 of the Act was made on 07.02.1990. Thereafter, an award bearing no.8/91-92 was passed on 06.02.1992.
Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a decision rendered by Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183, in support of his plea that since the compensation has not been tendered, the case of the
petitioners would be covered by the aforesaid decision.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that counter affidavit which has been handed over in Court confirms the submission made by him that the
possession of the subject land was taken on 26.02.2003. However, compensation in respect of share of the father of the petitioners namely Nawal
Singh was not paid. Para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by LAC reads as under :-
That it is submitted that the lands of village Siraspur were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated
9.2.1989 which was followed by the Notification under section 6 of the Act dated 7.2.1990. The Award was also passed vide Award
No.8/1991-92 dated 12.2.92 and the possession of the lands forming part of the present writ petition were also taken on 26.2.2003 and after the
possession was taken, the lands vests completely with the appropriate Government under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the
acquisition proceedings became complete, final and binding upon the parties. It is submitted that the compensation for the said khasra number qua
the share of father of petitioners namely Nawal Singh could not be paid.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the submissions made, 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.
The case of the petitioners would be fully covered by the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (supra), wherein it has been
held in paras 14 to 20 as under:
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 ""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.
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.
Since the award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and compensation having not been
tendered to the petitioners, the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land would deem to have lapsed. Consequently, the writ petition
is allowed. It is ordered accordingly. However, the petitioners would only be entitled to compensation as per 2013 Act.
The writ petition is disposed of.
CM APPL 41470/2017 (stay)
The application stands disposed of in view of order passed in the writ petition.