W.P.(C)/6898/2014 of TRILOK & ORS. Vs THE HONORABLE LT. GOVERNOR RAJ BHAWAN, DELHI & ORS.

$-19*IN JLX-, THE M.JLJLJLJ HIGH COURT ^ ^ OF ^ ^ DELHI ^AT NEW DELHI%Date of Judgment: 18''^ January, 2018

+W.P. (C.) No. 6898/2014TRILOK AND OTHERS PetitionersThrough: Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Advocate.

versus

THE HONOURABLE LT. GOVERNOR RAJ BHAWAN,DELHI & ORS.

RespondentsThrough: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate forMs.Deepika, Advocate for L&B/LAC.Mr. E>hanesh Relan and Ms. GauriGhaturvedi, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANIHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is petition filed under Article; 2^^ of the Constitution of Indiaby the petitioner. The petitioners seek writ, order or direction todeclare the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of thepetitioner i.e. 1/3'^'' share in 8 Biswa in Khasra No. 2920/157, 1/3'^''share in 1 Bigha 5 Biswa in Khasra No. 1294, 131/1245^*^ share in 1Bigha 9 Biswa in Khasra No. 156, 1/3'^'' share in 2 Bigha 5 biswa inKhasra No. 158 and 1/3'^'* share in 17 Biswa in Khasra No. 193 situatedin the revenue estate of village Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as the 'subject land') are deemed to have lapsed in view ofSection 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Page I of 8

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (NewAct),

Necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of thepresent writ petition are that Section 4 notification of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issuedon 23.01.1965, Section 6 notification of the Act was issued on07.12.1966 and an Award bearing no.80-E/70-71(supp.) was passedon 09.01.1981. The petitioner claims that the petitioner's predecessorin interest, i.e., Ratan Lai S/o Ramji Lai was the recordedowner/bhoomidar of the subject land.

The counsel for the DDA while relying on para 6 of the counteraffidavit submits that the possession, of the subject land was taken.Para 6 of the counter affidavit reads as under:

"6. Contents of paras 1 & 2 are vague, wrong,baseless and misleading hence are denied. As perrecord suit land bearing Khasra No. 2920/157 (0-8),156 (1-9), 158 (f05f ^ 1294 (1-05) ofVillage Mehrault wMS duly notified Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition ' Act [ by the appropriateGovernment, vide Notification No. F4(98)64-L&Hdated 23.1.1965 and under Section 6 of the LandAcquistion Act, vide Notification F4(98)64-L&Hdated 7.12.1966 for Public ' purpose for planneddevelopment ofDelhi under due process of law. AfterNotifications land was duly, validity and legallyacquired vide Aard No. 80-E/70-71 Supp. The suitland was placed at the disposal of the answeringrespondent vide Notification under Section 22 (i)bearing No. F9(20) 78/L&B/Vol.II dated 19.11.1981.The physical possession of the above said land washanded over to the DDA on dated 23.09.81 by theLand Acquisition Collector/Land & BuildingDepartment of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

Compensation of Award No. 80-E/70-71 Supp. inrespect of land measuring 2778 Bigha 16 Biswas wasalso duly and legally paid vide Dy. No. 6209 dated3.10.80 and Rs. 31, 79,230.25 on dated 05.11.1980 wasduly remitted by the Central Government to the Land& Building Department. It is further submitted thatthe procedure of land acquisition pertaining to thiswrit petition come in the ambit and scope ofGNCTD."

4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by LAC. Para 5 of the counteraffidavit reads as under:affidavit reads as under:

"5. That the correct facts are that the land inquestion i.e. Khasra No. 2920/157, 1294, 156, 158and 193 village Mehrauli in which there are shares ofthe petitioner was notified under section 4 of LA Acton 23 Januaiy 1965 followed by declaration undersection 6 on 07.12.1966 was published for planneddevelopment of Delhi. . In pursuance of the saidnotification, notices under section 9 and 10 asprovided under the Act were, issued to the interestedperson inviting the claims and claims were also filedby the interested person. The Land AcquisitionCollector passed Award No. BOE/70-71 (Supp.) dated09.01.1981 under Section 11 of the Act. Thepossession of the land was taken on 23.09.1981. Thecompensation with respect to 74/249 shares ofKhasraNo. 156 (1-09) has been.paid and compensation withrespect to 175/249 shares of Khasra No. 156 areunpaid. One third share of Khasra No. 2920/157 (0-08), 158 (2-05), 193 (0-17) and 1294 (1-5) have beenpaid and two third shares ofHari Singh S/o Ramji Laiwho were the recorded owner are unpaid. "

5. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the compensationwith respect to 213"^ share in Khasra No. 2920/157 (0-08), 158 (2-05),193 (0-17) and 1294 (1-5) of Hari Singh S/o Ramji Lai, who iswith respect to 213"^ share in Khasra No. 2920/157 (0-08), 158 (2-05),193 (0-17) and 1294 (1-5) of Hari Singh S/o Ramji Lai, who is

W.P.(C)No.6898/20U

recorded owner is unpaid infact 1/3'"'' share of said Khasra Nos.belongs to Hari Singh S/o Ramji Lai and 1/3'"'' share belongs Ratan LaiS/o Ramji Lai, who were recorded owners are unpaid.Reading of the counter affidavits filed by the DDA and LAC make itclear that the possession of the land has been taken over and put touse. Further, reading of the counter affidavit of the LAC would showthat 175/249 shares of Hari Singh S/o Ramji Jal in respect of PChasrano. 156 and one third shares of Ratan Lai S/o Ramji Jal in respect ofKhasra no.2920/157(0-08), 158(2-05), 193(0-17) remained unpaid.The case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision rendered bythe Supreme Court of India in, the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation & Am. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors.,reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183. Paras 14 to 20 read as under:

14. Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon theCollector, on making an award under Section 11, to tenderpayment of compensation to persons interested entitledthereto according to award. It further mandates the Collectorto make payment of compensation .to them unless preventedby one of the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2).The contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2) are: (i) thepersons interested entitled to compensation do not consentto receive it (ii) there, is no person competent to alienate theland and (ill) there is dispute as to the title to receivecompensation or as to the apportionment of it. If due to anyof the contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2), theCollector is prevented from making payment ofcompensation to the persons interested who are entitled tocompensation, then the Collector is required to deposit thecompensation in the court to which reference under Section18 may be made.15. Simply put, Section 31 of the 1894 Act makes provisionfor payment of compensation or deposit of the same in thecourt. This provision requires that the Collector shouldtender payment of compensation as awarded by him to thepersons interested who are entitled to compensation. If dueto happening of any contingency as contemplatedin Section 31(2), the compensation has not been paid, theCollector should deposit the amount of compensation in thecourt to which reference can be made under Section 18.

16. The mandatory nature of the provision in Section31(2) with regard to deposit of the compensation in thecourt is further fortified by the provisions containedin Sections 32, 33 and 34. As matter of fact. Section33 gives power to the court, on an application by personinterested or claiming an interest in such money, to pass anorder to invest the amount so deposited in such governmentor other approved securities and may direct the interest orother proceeds of any such investment to be accumulatedand paid in such manner as it may consider proper so thatthe parties interested therein may have the benefit therefromas they might have had from the land in respect whereofsuch money shall have/been deposited or as near thereto asmaybe.

17. While enacting Section 24(2), Parliament definitely hadin its view Section, 3,1. of the 1894. Act. From that one thingis clear that it did not intend to equate the word "paid" to"offered" or "tendered". But at the same time, we do notthink that by use of the word "paid". Parliament intendedreceipt of compensation by the landowners/personsinterested. In our view, it is not appropriate to give literalconstruction to the expression "paid" used in this subsection (sub-section (2) of Section 24). If literalconstruction were to be given, then it would amount toignoring procedure, mode and manner of deposit providedin Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act in the event of happeningof any of the contingencies contemplated therein which may

prevent the Collector from making actual payment ofcompensation. We are of the view, therefore, that for thepurposes of Section 24(2), the compensation shall beregarded as "paid" if the compensation has been offered tothe person interested and such compensation has beendeposited in the court where reference under Section 18 canbe made on happening of any of the contingenciescontemplated under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. In otherwords, the compensation may be said to have been "paid"within the meaning of Section 24(2) when the Collector (orfor that matter Land Acquisition Officer) has discharged hisobligation and deposited the amount of compensation incourt and made that amount available to the interestedperson to be dealt with as provided in Sections 32 and 33.

18. 1894 Act being an expropriatory legislation has to bestrictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner forpayment of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections31-34) of the 1894 Act. The Collector, with regard to thepayment of compensation, can only act in the manner soprovided. It is settled proppsitipn of law (classic statementof Lord Roche in Nazir Mmad[l]) that where power isgiven to do certaip thing m certain way, the thing mustbe done in that way or not at: all. Other, methods ofperformance are necessarily' forbidden.

19. Now, this is admitted position that, award was made on31.01.2008. Notices were issued to the landowners toreceive the compensation and since they did not receive thecompensation, the amount (Rs.27 crores) was deposited inthe government treasury. Can it be said that deposit of theamount of compensation in the government treasury isequivalent to the amount of compensation paid to thelandowners/persons interested? We do not think so. In acomparatively recent decision, this Court in AgneloSantimano Fernandes[2], relying upon the earlier decision inPrem Nath Kapur[3], has held that the deposit of the amountof the compensation in the state's revenue account is of no

avail and the liability of the state to pay interest subsists tillthe amount has not been deposited in court.

20. From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining tothe subject land has been made by the Special LandAcquisition Officer more than five years prior to thecommencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted positionthat compensation so awarded has neither been paid to thelandowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court.The deposit of compensation amount in the governmenttreasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent tocompensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. Wehave, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject landacquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsedunder Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act."

Having regard to the facts noted hereinabove and the stand taken bythe LAC and the DDA in their counter affidavits, we are of theconsidered view that the necessary ingredients for the application ofSection 24(2) of the New Act as has been interpreted by the SupremeCourt of India and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:

(1) Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183;Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors., reported at(2014) 6 SCC 564;(2014) 6 SCC 564;

(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State ofTamil Nadu and Ors, Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided on10.09.2014;Tamil Nadu and Ors, Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided on10.09.2014;

(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others,W.P.(C).2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; andW.P.(C).2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors;W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

9. Accordingly, in our view, acquisition proceedings qua the land of thepetitioner stand lapsed. However, as prayed, the petitioner would beentitled to compensation under the New Act, which would be paidwithin period of one year from today.petitioner stand lapsed. However, as prayed, the petitioner would beentitled to compensation under the New Act, which would be paidwithin period of one year from today.

10. The writ petition stands disposed of.

G.S.SISTANI, J.

JANUARY 18, 2018

SANGIT

INGSEHGAL, J.