Satish Kumar v. Lt. Governor Raj Bhawan, Delhi & Ors.

1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction to declare the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra no.2920/157 having 1/3rd share measuring 8 biswa; Khasra no.1294 having 1/3rd share measuring 1 bigha 5 biswa; Khasra no.156 having 131/1245th share measuring 1 bigha 9 biswa; Khasra no.158 having 1/3rd share measuring 2 bigha 5 biswa; and Khasra no.193 having 1/3rd share measuring 17 biswa, situated in the revenue estate of village Mehrauli, New Delhi 2017:DHC:7434-DB (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 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(New Act).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation has not been paid. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would seek compensation as per New Act as it is the stand of the DDA that the possession has been taken and the land is handed over to the Horticulture Department for the SFS Scheme.

3. Necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition are that a Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) was issued on 23.01.1965, a Section 6 notification of the Act was issued on 07.12.1966 and an Award bearing no.80-E/70-71(supp.) was passed on 09.01.1981. The petitioner claims that the petitioner‟s predecessor in interest, i.e., his father Hari Singh S/o Ramji Lal was the recorded owner/bhoomidar of the subject land.

4. The counsel for the DDA while relying on the counter affidavit submits that the possession of the subject land was taken and handed over to the Horticulture Department. Counsel for the LAC relies on para 5 of the counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the compensation with respect to the shares of Hari Singh S/o Ramji Lal are unpaid and deposited in the RD.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Para (k) of the counter affidavit filed by the DDA reads as under: “k. I say that the possession has been taken over in accordance with the law and the acquisition proceedings are complete qua such land as set out and as such the land vests in the Government free from encumbrance, which includes any right of the recorded owners of the land, or anyone who is an alleged possession or encroacher thereafter. It is submitted that no other person except the Government has any right, title or interest in the land. It is submitted that the land in question i.e. Khasra Nos.2920/157(0-8), 156(1-9), 158(2-05), 193(0-17), 1294(1-

05) situated in village Mehrauli was acquired vide award no.80E/70-71/Supp. The physical possession of the above land was handed over to the DDA by the Land Acquisition Collector, L&B Department on 23.09.1981. The land bearing Khasra no.2920/157, 156, 158, 193 further transferred to the Horticulture Department on 23.09.1981, and SFS Scheme on 24.07.1984. The notification under section 22(i) no.F9/(20)78/ L&B/ Vol-II was issued on 19.11.1981.”

6. It would also be useful to reproduce para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, which reads as under: “That the correct facts are that the land in question i.e. khasra no.2920/157, 1294, 156, 158 and 193 Vill-Mehrauli in which there are shares of the petitioner was notified under section 4 of LA Act on 23 January 1965 followed by declaration under section 6 on 07.12.1966 was published for planned development of Delhi. In pursuance of the said notification, notices under section 9 and 10 as provided under the Act were issued to the interested person inviting the claims and claims were also filed by the interested person. The Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No.80E/70-71(Supp.) dated 09.01.1981 u/s 11 of the Act. The possession of the land was taken on 23.09.1981. The compensation with respect to 74/249 shares of Khasra No.156(1-09) has been paid and compensation with respect to 175/249 shares of Khasra no.156 are unpaid. One third share of khasra no.2920/157(0-08), 158(2-05), 193(0-17) have been paid and two third shares of Hari Singh S/o Ramji Lal who was the recorded owner are unpaid.”

7. Reading of the counter affidavits filed by the DDA and LAC make it clear that the possession of the land has been taken over and put to use. Further, reading of the counter affidavit of the LAC would show that 175/249 shares of Hari Singh S/o Ramji Jal in respect of Khasra no.156 and two third shares of Hari Singh S/o Ramji Jal in respect of Khasra no.2920/157(0-08), 158(2-05), 193(0-17) remained unpaid.

8. The case of the petitioner is 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. 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.