Nutan Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners. The petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to 1/3rd share of the petitioners in the land measuring 30 bighas 18 biswas (5 bigha 3 biswas) comprised in Khasra Nos.1372/2 (1-4), 1376/3 (1-5), 1377 (5-12), 1378 (0-10), 1379 (4-1), 1380 (4-16), 1381/1 (2-16), 1522 (4-16), 1523/1 (3-14) & 1732/1 (2-4) situated in the revenue estate of Village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (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, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the New Act”) as the compensation with respect to the share of the petitioners in respect of the subject land has not been paid. 2017:DHC:7343-DB

2. 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 26.12.1968 and an Award pertaining to the subject land was made on 30.03.1981.

3. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the father of the petitioners Mr.Bhagwat Swarup expired on 01.05.2006 and the subject land has been inherited by the petitioners being his Class-I legal heirs.

4. The counsel for LAC relies on the counter affidavit which has been filed, more particularly, paragraphs 4 and 5 in support of her contention that possession of the subject land has already been taken. However, there is no denial that compensation could not be paid and has been sent to RD. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit are reproduced as under: “4.That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have not disclosed that the answering respondent has already taken the possession of the subject land falling in village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri on 31.03.1981 whereas the compensation could not be paid and sent to RD.

5. That it is submitted that the lands of village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri bearing Kh. Nos. 1372/2 (1-04), 1376/3 (1-05), 1377 (5-12), 1378 (0-10), 1379 (4-01), 1380 (4-16), 1381/1(2- 16), 1522 (4-16), 1523(3-14) & 1732/1 (2-04), were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 23.01.1965 which was followed by the Notification under section 6 of the Act dated 26.12.1968. The Award was also passed vide Award No. 146/80-81 dated 30.03.1981 and the physical possession of the subject land was duly taken on the spot on 31.03.1981 and handed over to the DDA.”

5. The counsel for the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has also relied on paragraphs 3(k) & 3(l) of their counter affidavit and additional affidavit filed by them in support of his plea that the possession of the subject land has been taken and has been put to use.

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

7. Having regard to the fact that admittedly compensation of the subject land has not been tendered to the petitioners, 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. 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.”