Trilok & ORS. v. The Honorable Lt. Governor Raj Bhawan, Delhi & ORS.

$-19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

* JLX-, M.JLJLJLJ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ % Date of Judgment: 18''^ January, 2018 + W.P. (C.) No. 6898/2014 TRILOK AND OTHERS Petitioners Through:

Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Advocate.

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

Respondents Through:

Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate for Ms.Deepika, Advocate for L&B/LAC.

Mr. E>hanesh Relan and Ms. Gauri Ghaturvedi, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a petition filed under Article; 2^^ of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. The petitioners seek a writ, order or direction to declare the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner 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 1 Bigha 9 Biswa in Khasra No. 156, 1/3'^'' share in 2 Bigha 5 biswa in Khasra No. 158 and 1/3'^'* share in 17 Biswa in Khasra No. 193 situated in the revenue estate of village Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject land') are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in W.P. (C) No.6898/2014 Page I of 8 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Act), 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 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., Ratan Lai S/o Ramji Lai was the recorded owner/bhoomidar of the subject land.

3.

The counsel for the DDA while relying on para 6 of the counter affidavit 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 per record suit land bearing Khasra No. 2920/157 (0-8), 156 (1-9), 158 (f05f ^ 1294 (1-05) of Village Mehrault wMS duly notified Section 4 of the Land Acquisition ' Act [ by the appropriate Government, vide Notification No. F4(98)64-L&H dated 23.1.1965 and under Section 6 of the Land Acquistion Act, vide Notification F4(98)64-L&H dated 7.12.1966 for Public '

purpose for planned development ofDelhi under due process of law. After Notifications land was duly, validity and legally acquired vide Aard No. 80-E/70-71 Supp. The suit land was placed at the disposal of the answering respondent 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 was handed over to the DDA on dated 23.09.81 by the Land Acquisition Collector/Land & Building Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

W.P. (C) No. 6898/2014

Compensation of Award No. 80-E/70-71 Supp. in respect of land measuring 2778 Bigha 16 Biswas was also duly and legally paid vide Dy. No. 6209 dated 3.10.80 and Rs. 31, 79,230.25 on dated 05.11.1980 was duly remitted by the Central Government to the Land & Building Department. It is further submitted that the procedure of land acquisition pertaining to this writ petition come in the ambit and scope of GNCTD."

4.

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

"5.

That the correct facts are that the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 2920/157, 1294, 156, 158 and 193 village Mehrauli in which there are shares of the petitioner was notified under section 4 of LA Act on 23 Januaiy 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. BOE/70-71 (Supp.) dated 09.01.1981 under Section 11 of the Act.

The possession of the land was taken on 23.09.1981. The compensation with respect to 74/249 shares ofKhasra 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 (008), 158 (2-05), 193 (0-17) and 1294 (1-5) have been paid and two third shares ofHari Singh S/o Ramji Lai who were the recorded owner are unpaid. "

5.

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the compensation with 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 „ , ^„ Pages of 8

h 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 Lai S/o Ramji Lai, who were recorded owners are unpaid. 6.

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 PChasra no. 156 and one third shares of Ratan Lai S/o Ramji Jal in respect of Khasra no.2920/157(0-08), 158(2-05), 193(0-17) remained unpaid. 7.

The case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in, the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & 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 the Collector, on making an award under Section 11, to tender payment of compensation to persons interested entitled thereto according to award. It further mandates the Collector to make payment of compensation .to them unless prevented by one of the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2). The contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2) are: (i) the persons interested entitled to compensation do not consent to receive it (ii) there, is no person competent to alienate the land and (ill) there is dispute as to the title to receive compensation or as to the apportionment of it. If due to any of the contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2), the Collector is prevented from making payment of compensation to the persons interested who are entitled to compensation, then the Collector is required to deposit the compensation in the court to which reference under Section 18 may be made.

W.P.(C)No.6898/2014 „ ^

n

15. Simply put, Section 31 of the 1894 Act makes provision for payment of compensation or deposit of the same in the court. This provision requires that the Collector should tender payment of compensation as awarded by him to the persons interested who are entitled to compensation. If due to happening of any contingency as contemplated in Section 31(2), the compensation has not been paid, the Collector should deposit the amount of compensation in the court to which reference can be made under Section 18.

16. The mandatory nature of the provision in Section 31(2) with regard to deposit of the compensation in the court is further fortified by the provisions contained in Sections 32, 33 and 34. As a matter of fact. Section 33 gives power to the court, on an application by a person interested or claiming an interest in such money, to pass an order to invest the amount so deposited in such government or other approved securities and may direct the interest or other proceeds of any such investment to be accumulated and paid in such manner as it may consider proper so that the parties interested therein may have the benefit therefrom as they might have had from the land in respect whereof such money shall have/been deposited or as near thereto as maybe.

17. While enacting Section 24(2), Parliament definitely had in its view Section, 3,1. of the 1894. Act. From that one thing is clear that it did not intend to equate the word "paid" to "offered" or "tendered". But at the same time, we do not think that by use of the word "paid". Parliament intended receipt of compensation by the landowners/persons interested. In our view, it is not appropriate to give a literal construction to the expression "paid" used in this sub section (sub-section (2) of Section 24). If a literal construction were to be given, then it would amount to ignoring procedure, mode and manner of deposit provided in Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act in the event of happening of any of the contingencies contemplated therein which may W.P.(C)No.6898/20I4

prevent the Collector from making actual payment of compensation. We are of the view, therefore, that for the purposes of Section 24(2), the compensation shall be regarded as "paid" if the compensation has been offered to the person interested and such compensation has been deposited in the court where reference under Section 18 can be made on happening of any of the contingencies contemplated under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. In other words, the compensation may be said to have been "paid" within the meaning of Section 24(2) when the Collector (or for that matter Land Acquisition Officer) has discharged his obligation and deposited the amount of compensation in court and made that amount available to the interested person to be dealt with as provided in Sections 32 and 33.

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 proppsitipn of law (classic statement of Lord Roche in Nazir Mmad[l]) that where a power is given to do a certaip thing m 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 W.P.(C)No.6898/2014

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."

8.

Having regard to the facts noted hereinabove and the stand taken by the LAC and the DDA in their counter affidavits, 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 (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others, W.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)No.6898/20I4 „ ,

9.

Accordingly, in our view, acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioner stand lapsed. However, as prayed, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the New Act, which would be paid within a period of one year from today.

10.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

/ G.S.SISTANI, J.

SANGIT ING SEHGAL, J.

JANUARY 18, 2018 gr ff.P. (C) No.6898/2014