Vikram Singh v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner measuring 1 bigha and 6 biswas out of 16 bighas and 4 biswas (being 27/72 shares in 43 bighas and 4 biswas) falling in Khasra nos. 1269 (4- 16), 1272 (4-16), 1273 (4-16), 1284 (4-16), 1285 (4-16), 1286 (4-16), 1287 (4-16) 1288(4-16), 1292 (4-16) having possession of land in Khasra no. 1269 (4-16 ), situated in the revenue estate of village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, New Delhi-110070(hereinafter referred to as the “subject land”) would stand lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, 2017:DHC:7311-DB Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the New Act”).

2. Ms. Marwaha submits that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued on 27th June, 1996. A notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.01.1997. Thereafter, an Award no.2/1998-99 was made on 07.01.1999.

3. The learned counsel submits that paper possession was taken with respect to a part of the land. However, the actual physical possession of the entire area continues to remain with the petitioner, besides no compensation has been paid. Learned counsel relies on the para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC in support of her submission that neither compensation has been paid nor possession has been taken.

4. The learned counsel for the LAC submits that the possession of the land has been taken, however, the compensation has not been paid. He submits that the physical possession could not be taken on account of stay having been granted in various petitions.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Para 5 of the counter affidavit, which reflects the stand taken by the LAC, as under: “5. That as per record the status of the land of the petitioner mention in the writ petition is detail as below: Khasra No. Notification u/s 4 of LA Act Notification u/s 6 of LA Act Award No. Date of possession Details of compensation Stay in Delhi High Court 1269 (4- 16), F.9(12)/95/ L&b/LA/974 3 Dated 27/06/96 F.9(12)/95/ L&b/LA/104 6 Dated 10/01/97 02/98village Rangpur i Dated 07/01/9 Possession not Taken Not received from requisitioning Department. Hence not paid. Kh. NO. 1269(4-16) stay vide WPC No. 4431/15, 1607/16, 1703/16, 1679/16. 1284 (4- 16), 1285 (4-16), 1286(4-16), 1287(4-16) Do Do Do Possession not taken from department. Kh. No. 1287 (4-16), 1284 (4-16), 1285(4-16), 1286 (4-16), No. 4431/15, 1568/16, 1607/16, 1703/16 & 1679/16. 1288(4-16) Do Do Do Possession not taken from Kh. No. 1288 No. 1609/16, 4431/15, 1607/16, 1568/16, 1679/16. 1292 (4-16) Do Do Do Possession not taken from Kh. No. 1292 (4-16) stay vide WPC NO. 4431/15, 1607/16, 1703/16, 1679/16, 1568/15, 1607/16 & 1703/16. 1272 (4-16) & 1273 (4- 16) Do Do Do Possession taken on 31/12/13 Do _

7. A careful reading of para 5 would show the details with regard to issuing notifications, Award number and the endorsement regarding possession not having taken for the reasons stated therein have been reflected. The counter affidavit also shows that the amount of compensation was not tendered as the compensation was not received from the requisitioning department.

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.

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. In view of the submissions made and the stand taken by the LAC in their counter affidavit, 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