Bhagirathlal Mittal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners.

2. The petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of 2/3'''' share in land bearing Khasra No.453 min W.P. (C)No.3392/2016 p„g^ j 7 2018:DHC:9133-DB -(■"1. (1-02), situated in the revenue estate of village Sahoorpur, Tehsil- Saket, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land') is deemed to have 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 'New Act'), as thepossessionhas beentakenbut compensationhas not beentendered to thepetitioners. In this case, a notification under Sectiom[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 made on 20.05.1985, Thereafter; a^ Award bearing n[6].10/87-8,| was made on 14.05.1987. Counsel for the petitioner while relying qh;,a decision rendered by Apex Court \vl Pune Municipal Corporation & Am. v. HarakchandMisirimalSolanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183, submits that since no compensation^ was tendered, acquisition proceedings is deemedtb hayeftgisefi';* The counter affidavit haS'beeni-ftfe^^ byrtfie LAC.Inpara 8 of counter affidavit, details have been given to show that the compensation was sent in RD. Para 8;;Gf"^the c^punter affi,4dyit filed by LAC reads as under: "8.That in the present case, the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed to the beneficiary department 14.07.1987. As per Statement-A the status of compensation withrespect to the above landis as under NAME AMOUNT REMARKS RajaaqMohd. 859.13 Sent inRD AtiMohd. 859.13 Sent in RD Mohd. Ishtaq 859.13 Sent inRD Chau Khan 10309.59 Sent inRD W.P. (C) No.3392/2016 V.

5.

6. |0 Shibbi 10309.56 Sent in RD Mohd. Yusuf 2577.40 Sent in RD Mohd.Kha 2577.40 Sent in RD Mohd.Sharif 2577.38 Sent in RD the respondent has written d letter dated 13.11,2017.to the Pay &Accounfs,PA0r[6], Tis Hazdri, Delhifor information aboutany payment made through Refund Voucher or otherwisefrom RD and it is prayed that a reply from the same may kindly he awaited". Wehave heard learned counsels*fon;the parties. Having regard the submissions made.-ahd fact that the compensation was nottendercH'to fire petitioners and was sentto RD, we are ofthe considered view that the case ofthe.pejitipner is fully covered-by the decision rendered by^the Apex Court ip;.the case of PaneMunicipalCorporation (supra). Paras 14to 20 ofwhich read as under: "14.Section 31(1)of'the,,1894,Act enjoins upon the Collector, on making an award'uncler Section 11,to tender payment of compensation lo persons interested entitled thereto according to awardritfurtliefmandatesthe Collector to.make payment ofcompensation to them unless prevented by one ofthe contingencies contemplated in sub-section(2). The CQntingehcieSKGQnteihplatedJn are:(i)the persons iiiterested enhtieditoicomjpe^^ not consent to receive it(ii)there is no person competentto alienate the land and (hi) there is dispute as. to the title to receive compensation or as to the apportionment ofit. Ifdue to any of the contingencies contemplated in Section 3.1(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. W.P. (Q No.3392/2016 Page3of[7]

15. Simply put,Section31 ofthe 1894 Act makesprovision lor payment ofcompensation or deposit ofthe same in the court. This provision requires that the Collector should tender payment ofcompensation as awarded by him to the persons interested who are entitled to compensation.Ifdue to happening of any contingency as contemplated in Section 31(2), the compensation has not been paid, the Collectorshould depositthe amountofcompensation in the courtto which reference can be made under Section 18. mandatory nature of the provision in Section 31(2)with regard to deposit of the.compensation in the \J further fortified by the^provisions contained 32,33 and 34. As a matter of fact.Section 33gives power to the court, bp:an,.application by:a person interested or claiming an intei|§t:&,sU)ch money,to p orderto mvestthe amountsol^ijledin such goyemment or o^hef approved securities and:^^"direct the interest or otheriprocceds ofany such in||i^bnt to be accumulated ^d paid in such manner as itf^;^nsider proper so that thepartiesinterested therein-mu^h^ethe benefittherefrom as they might have had ffom|t|q|iand in respect whereof such money shall have been d|pdsited or as near thereto as may be.

17. While enacting Action24^)^|lmentdefinitely had in Its view Section 31 ofthe^14g|fi^ct.Frohithat one thing is clear that it did not iniend to equate the word "paid"to offered or tendered". But at the sarne time, we do not think that by use'of^fe^o^j^aii^^arliament m^ reeeipt of comperisaiioh by''iihe 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) ofSection 24). If a literal constmction were to be given, then it would amount to ignoring procedure, mode and rrianner ofdeposit provided in Section 31(2)ofthe 1894 Actin the eventofhappening ofanyofthecontingenciescontemplatedtherein which may prevent the Collector from making actual payment of compensation. We are of the view, therefore, that for the purposes ofSection 24(2), the compensation shall be fV.P.(C)No.3392/2016 Page4of? regarded as "paid" ifthe 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)ofthe 1894 Act.In other words, the compensation may be said to have been "paid" within the meaning ofSection 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.

18. 1894 Act being an expropriatoiy^ legislation has to be strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner for payment ofcompensation are pibscribed in Part y(Sections 31-34) of the 1894 Acti The.CpllSefpr, with regard to the payment of compensation,,can;•pnly:^^ in the manner so provided. It is settled,,propositiqft|pi;la^(classic statement ofLord Roche in Nazir Ahm^[l|j||tthat where a power is given to do a certain thing in a^iWerldin way,the thing must be done in that way; pr^not iafiall. Other methods of performance are neceSsaMyitbrliid&n.^

19. Now,this is admittedi,positi|)n||hat award was made on 31.01.2008. Notices. wereIv=issMu',1tC)V the landowners to receive the compensation'andysihG^ihey did not receive the compensation, the ampuntt(Rsj2^|rores) was deposited in. the government treasury. Can it be said that deposit ofthe amount of compensation in the government treasury is ■ equivalent to thet;£pount-'-pf paid to the landowners/persons interested? We do not think so. In a comparatively recent decision, this Court in Agnelo Santimano Femandes[2],relying upon the earlier decision in Prem Nath Kapur[3],has held thatthe deposit ofthe amount ofthe compensation in the state's revenue account is ofno availand the liability ofthe state to pay interest subsists till the amounthas notbeen 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 ff.P.(C)No.3392/2016 Page5of[7] commencement ofthe 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 ofno avail and cannotbe held to be equivalentto compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested, We have,therefore,no hesitation in holding thatthe subjectland acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2)ofthe 2013 Act."

7. Since,the award having been announced mOre than five years prior to the commencement of the New Act, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that,the acquisition-proceedings.in fespqct of the subject land is deemed to havedapsed.'It is ordered^accOirdingly!

8. The writpetition stands disposed oi^. '

9. At this stage, Mr.Kumar submits that the petitioner is not the rightful f.u- '.r -; ■. owner as land was purchased,by the petitioner after the acquisition proceedings. • t /V'

10. We make it clear that we have nbtexp'ressed any opinion with respect to the title Ofthe petitioner which would be open to applicant to seek such remedy available m accbfdance witffilaw. CM No.41113/2017(impleadmentl This is an application under Order I Rule-10 of Code of Ciyil Procedure,1908 seeking impleadment. The application is dismissed as withdrawn in view oforder passed in the writpetition making it clear thatthe question oftitle is keptopen. W.P.(C)No.3392/2016 Page6of[7] f)Ll -/ CM N[6].14479/2016(stay) The application is disposed of, in view of order passed in the writ petition. G.S.SISTANIHfr JANUARY 30,2018 ssc SANGITA G GAL •vk:- ■-;r. i. ■ - r ■C' 1;