Naresh Chandra Rastogi And Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr

Owners’ Name,Compensation,Remarks

Nisha Rastogi,"52,506.69","Disputed: There is no mention as

to whether payment has been

made to them or not.

Mala Rastogi,"52,506.69",

Rajesh Chandra Rastogi,"52,506.70",

Naresh Chandra Rastogi,"52,506.70",

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.â€​,,

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for LAC and in view of the fact that the LAC failed to satisfy this Court as to whether,,

the compensation has been paid to the petitioners or deposited in the Court of Additional District Judge, we are of the considered view that the",,

necessary ingredients of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act stand satisfied. 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.,,

The writ petition stands disposed of.,,