Meena S. Gupta v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 17 Jan 2018 · 2018:DHC:477-DB

G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal

W.P. (C) No.2994/2016

2018:DHC:477-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 paid or deposited in court, declaring the petitioners' acquisition proceedings lapsed accordingly.

Full Text

W.P. (C) No.2994/2016 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of

JUDGMENT

: 17th January, 2018

W.P.(C) 2994/2016
MEENA S. GUPTA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms.Richa Oberoi and Mr.Ankit Banati, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Roshan Lal Goel and Ms.Anju Gupta, Advocates for respondent no.1/UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for L&B/LAC with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate.
Ms.Niharika Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent no.3/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 filed in the Registry today; the same has been called to the Court.

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

3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners admeasuring 605 2018:DHC:477-DB square yards forming part of Khasra No.654 situated in the revenue estate of village Neb Sarai, Tehsil-Hauz Khas, 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 neither the physical possession has been taken nor 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 05.11.1980 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21.05.1985. Thereafter an Award bearing No.12/1987-88 was passed on 20.05.1987. Counsel for the petitioners 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 neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioners.

5. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the DDA that physical possession has been handed over to them.

7. As per counter affidavit filed by the LAC, the physical possession of the subject land could not be taken and as far as the payment of compensation is concerned, there is no entry in Statement-„A‟. Para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by LAC reads as under: “5. That there is no entry in the Naksha Muntazamin as to whether any payment was made to the petitioners or not. The statement ‘A’ of the Award No.12/87-88 is not traceable. An NCR has also been lodged with the P.S. Neb Sarai bearing LR.No.:0063/2017 dated 07/02/2017. However, as per the Revenue Deposit Register, the total amount of Rs.8,10,28,938/- of Award No.12/87-88 was deposited in R.D. but the same was later withdrawn vide R.V.No.436 dated 07.05.1993 for the Award No.1/93-94 Village-Kakrola, Delhi as per Dy. Secy. (L&B) Letter No.F.19/(145/88-89/L&B/F.A-2039[2] dated 07.07.1992”.

8. In our view, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.(supra). Paras 14 to 20 of aforesaid decision 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.

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.”

9,565 characters total

9. Having regard to the submissions made and stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit that neither compensation has been paid nor possession has been taken over, we are of the considered view that the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the New Act as has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others,

(v) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors;

10. Since, the award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.

11. The writ petition stands disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JANUARY 17, 2018 / ssc

Meena S. Gupta v. Union of India

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation