Lala Ram and Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi High Court · 23 Jan 2018 · 2018:DHC:580-DB

G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal

W.P. (C) No.11936/2015

2018:DHC:580-DB

property petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if neither possession is taken nor compensation is paid or deposited in court, declaring the petitioners' acquisition null and void.

Full Text

W.P. (C) No.11936/2015 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of

JUDGMENT

: 23rd January, 2018

W.P.(C) 11936/2015
LALA RAM AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. M. Amanullah and Mr. M.B.
Tariq, Advocates

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, Standing Counsel for UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/ LAC.
Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. Counter affidavit has been handed over in Court by the counsel for the LAC, copy of which has been supplied to the counsel for the petitioner. Counter affidavit be taken on record.

2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners. The petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land of petitioners comprised in Khasra no.631/190, measuring 6 bigha 10 biswa, situated in the revenue estate of village Jasola, 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 2018:DHC:580-DB Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the „2013 Act‟), as neither the physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor the compensation has been paid to the petitioners.

4. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued on 06.04.1964. A Section 6 declaration was made on 07.12.1966 and an Award thereof bearing no.6D/Suppli/86-87 was rendered on 19.09.1986.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that neither physical possession has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered to the petitioners, hence the case of the petitioners would be fully covered by the decision rendered in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC

183. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the DDA, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners‟ land Khasra no.631/190 measuring 6 bigha and 10 biswa, has not been handed over to DDA by L&B/LAC Department of GNCTD.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:

“4. That it is submitted that the lands of village Jasola were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 6.4.1964 which was followed by Notification under 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated 7.12.1966. That the then Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award No.6-D/Supp./86-87 and the possession of the subject land falling in khasra number 631/190(6-10) including other parts/min of the same khasra number were duly taken on

the spot on 19.1.1994 and handed over to the requisition agency on the spot by preparing possession proceeding on the spot. One such min consisting of (37-04) could not be taken due to stay. The Statement-A however did not carry any entry to the effect that the compensation was paid to the recorded owner and it reflected that the compensation was sent in RD on23.9.90.”

7. As per the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, the compensation has been sent to RD on 23.09.1990 and has not been tendered to the petitioners. Hence, the case of the petitioners would be fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.(supra). Paragraphs 14 to 20 of which, read as under:

“14. 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. 15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 subsection (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.

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.

9,876 characters total

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.”

8. Taking into consideration the submissions made and the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit, 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.

9. Since the award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and, having regard to the stand taken by the LAC and the fact that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners, the petitioners are 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.

10. The petition stands disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JANUARY 23, 2018/pst/

Lala Ram and Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation