Nathan Singh Gulshan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner and respondent nos.[4] to 6 seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioner to the extent of 1/6th share admeasuring 4 bighas, 2 biswas and 6 biswansi, out of Khasra No.28 min(1-10), 37(4-16), 38(4-14), 47(4-4), 57(4-16), 58(4-16) situated in the revenue estate of village Sayoorpur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the subject land‟) stands lapsed 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 the compensation pursuant to 1/6th share of Shri Singan @ Sangan has not been paid.

2. 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, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 07.06.1985 and an Award bearing No.10/1987-88 was passed on 14.05.1987. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183, as the compensation pursuant to 1/6th share of Shri Singan @ Sangan has not been paid.

3. Mr.Panda confirms the fact while relying on para 8 of the counter affidavit that although the possession has been taken, the compensation amount of 1/6th share of Shri Sagan has not been tendered. Para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by LAC reads as under:

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

5. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.(supra), in paras 14 to 20, it was held as under:

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.”

6. Having regard to the submissions made, stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit and taking into consideration that the counter affidavit is silent whether Sagan or his legal heirs refused to accept compensation or if on account of a dispute the amount of compensation could not be tendered, 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 stand satisfied.

7. Since, the award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled to declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land as described above i.e. 1/6th share of Shri Sagan is deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly. The question of title is kept open.