Subhash Chopra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. 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 34 bigha and 18 biswas land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No.334(7-10), 335(0-5), 336(3-2), 337 (4-16), 338 min (2-6), 339 (4-16), 339 min (2-10), 340 (4-16) and 341(4-16) (New numbers 28//13(4-16), 14(4-16), 17(4-14), 18(4-16), 23(4-16), 24(4-14), 35//3 (2-12), 4(3-16) situated in the revenue estate of village Bamnoli, NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the 2018:DHC:395-DB subject land‟) stand 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 petitioner.

2. In this case, a Notification under Section 4 was issued on 04.11.2004, a declaration under Section 6 was issued on 31.10.2005 and an Award bearing No.1/2007-08 was passed on 27.07.2007.

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by LAC. Para 8 of the counter affidavit reads as under:

5. Counsel for petitioners submits that in view of the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit, the acquisition proceedings with respect to Khasra numbers so mentioned in para 8 may be deemed to have been lapsed. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the case of the petitioners 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 petitioner. Paras 14 to 20 of aforesaid decision read 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 and the stand taken by the LAC in its counter affidavit in para 8 as extracted hereinabove that physical possession of land admeasuring 34 bigha 18 biswas could not be taken due to built up area and the compensation has not been 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 stand satisfied.

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