M/S Cardio Products Corporation v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 09 Jan 2018 · 2018:DHC:216-DB

G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal

W.P.(C) 9917/2015

2018:DHC:216-DB

property petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse if compensation is neither paid nor deposited in court and possession is not taken, applying Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Full Text

W.P.(C)99 17/2015 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of

JUDGMENT

09th January, 2018

W.P.(C) 9917/2015
M/S CARDIO PRODUCTS CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Mr. Vinay K.
Shailendra and Ms. Worthina Kasal, Advocates.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITROY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen and Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates 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 is stated to be filed in the Registry on 08.01.2018 vide diary No. 3972.

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

3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 with respect to the land of the petitioner forming part Khasra 1257 admeasuring 2 Bigha situated in the revenue estate of Village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, New Delhi, 2018:DHC:216-DB has lapsed, as neither the actual physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor the compensation has been paid.

4. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 27.06.1996 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act on 10.01.1997and an award in respect of the subject land was rendered vide Award No. 2/1998-99 on 07.01.1999.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since neither the possession has been taken nor the compensation has been paid, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183.

6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for LAC placed reliance on para 7 of the counter affidavit and submits that neither the possession of the subject land could not be taken nor compensation has been received from requisitioning authority. In fact no compensation was tendered to the petitioner.

7. We have heard counsel for parties.

8. Para 7 of the counter affidavit reads as under:

“7. That the acquisition proceedings qua the notified land i.e. land notified under Award No. 2/98- 99 could not be completed because of the interim orders passed in various writ petitions. It however appears that the Khasra number 1257 did not form part of writ 7802/12 and is not pat of fresh Declaration issued in July, 2017. That as regard possession, it is humbly submitted that the possession of the land in question could not be taken. So far as compensation is concerned the compensation amount has not been received from requisitioning authority.

9. Having regard to the fact that admittedly compensation has not been paid to the petitioners, we are of the view that the case of the petitioners would be covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (supra). Paras 14 to 20 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 sub-section (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.

9,648 characters total

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.”

10. 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: (1) Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183; (2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors., reported at (2014) 6 SCC 564; (3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; (4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others, W.P.(C).2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors; W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

10. Applying the law laid down to the facts of the present case, since the award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and, having regard to the fact that the compensation has not been tendered, the petitioner is 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.

11. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

G. S. SISTANI, J

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JANUARY 09, 2018 gr

M/S Cardio Products Corporation v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation