Vinod Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.

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

2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners. The petitioners claim to be owners of land measuring 1 bigha 18 biswas (1/6th share) in Khasra No.1100 situated in the revenue estate of village Tughlakabad, Delhi comprised in khata/khatauni no.177/226 (hereinafter referred to as „the subject land‟) and seek a direction that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed in view of 2018:DHC:10-DB 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 the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.

3. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued on 05.11.1980. A Section 6 declaration was made on 08.01.1986. Thereafter, an Award bearing no.29 of the year 1987-88 was rendered. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the possession of the subject land has been taken but compensation has not been paid. Counsel further submits that the writ petition of other co-owners of the same subject land already stands allowed vide an order dated 09.08.2016. Mr.Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the LAC submits that as per the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, more particularly paragraph 8, the compensation has not been paid and the copies of the possession proceedings are also not available. Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the DDA submits that as per the record of the DDA possession has not been handed over to them.

4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners stands fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Paragraphs 8 of the counter affidavit filed by LAC reads as under:

7. The reading of the counter affidavit makes it clear that neither copies of the proceedings of possession are available nor compensation has been tendered to the petitioners. Resultantly, the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.(supra). Paras 14 to 20 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.