Suresh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

1. The petitioner seeks a direction to declare the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of land of the petitioner admeasuring 1 bigha 9 biswas comprised in Khasra No.1148 (2-18), New Khasra Nos.395 and 114, situated in revenue estate of village Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as subject land’) under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 to have lapsed in view Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘New Act’). The petitioner claims to be one of the co-owners in the land in question. It is also claimed that the land is undivided till date and thus, the petitioner has an undivided interest in the entire and every parcel of the 2017:DHC:6584-DB land in question along with the other co-owners and he does not have any adverse interest against the co-owners or their shares. It has also been claimed that this writ petition has been filed for the benefit of the co-owners of the land in question.

2. Learned counsel submits that in this case notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 23.01.1965 & 07.12.1966 respectively. A supplementary award bearing no.80E/1970- 71 was made. It is also the case of the petitioner that despite the award having been made neither the petitioner nor his predecessor-in-interest have been paid compensation although all the parts of the land falling in Khasra no.395 was taken but was not put to any use. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even as per the stand taken by the LAC in their counter affidavit, the compensation was not tendered to the recorded owners and the same was sent to the Revenue Deposit (RD). Mr.Maan submits that case of the petitioner is covered by the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., 2014 3 SCC 183. He also relies on decision in (i) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 564,

(ii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; (iii) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others, W.P.(C).2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (iv) Giri Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors; W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

3. Mr. Birbal appearing for DDA submits that physical possession of the land was handed over to the DDA by the LAC department on 23.09.1981. Another submission has been made by Mr.Birbal with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the writ petition has not been filed by all the co-owners.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Having regard to the fact that the compensation with regard to the subject land was not tendered, the case of the petitioner would be fully covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court 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.”

5. As far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on account of all the co-owners not being impleaded as parties is concerned, a similar question had arisen for consideration in the case of Habib Khan & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. W.P.(C) 7353/2014, para 4 of which reads as under: “4. There is, however, one more point which needs to be considered. An objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that all the co-owners have not been made parties to the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that each of the petitioners has an undivided share in the entire subject land. As a result, the petition is maintainable by the petitioners on behalf of themselves as also on behalf of the other co-owners. The petition cannot be thrown out on the ground that some of the co-owners have not been made parties to this proceeding. We agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners only have an undivided share in the subject land, this petition shall enure to their benefit and also to the benefit of the other co-owners who are not before this court. We are not called upon to decide the issue of the apportionment of their shares or the inter-se claims between the co-owners. In fact we are not deciding the issue of title at all.”

6. In view of the observation made in the case of Habib Khan(supra), we find that the objection raised by Mr. Birbal is unacceptable.

7. 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