DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KUSHAM JAIN AND ANR.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 8477 of 2016, Judgment Date: Aug 31, 2016

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8477 OF 2016
                 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8467 of 2015)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                              APPELLANT(S)         


                                  Versus


KUSHAM JAIN AND ANOTHER                                  RESPONDENT(S)        


                              J U D G M E N T


KURIAN, J.


            Leave granted.

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.11.2014  passed  by  the
High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.  4232  of  2014.  The  High
Court has granted  a  declaration  that  the  land  acquisition  proceedings
culminating in the Award dated 19.9.1986 in respect of 1 bigha 4  biswas  of
land in Khasra No. 89/23/2 in village  Palam,  New  Delhi  has  lapsed.   At
paragraph 2 of the  judgment,  the  admitted  position  of  non  payment  of
compensation has been recorded  by  the  High  Court.  Paragraph  2  of  the
judgment reads as under :-

      “2.   Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said  land
was taken on 04.01.2002, the petitioner disputes  this  and  maintains  that
physical possession has not been taken.  However, insofar as  the  issue  of
compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has  not  been
paid.”

 Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for  the  appellant-
Delhi Development Authority submits that the  requisitioning  authority  had
already  paid  the  amounts  to  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  and  the
appellant may not be visited with adverse consequences  for  the  delay,  if
any, on the part  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  in  disbursing  the
amount.  Shri Sharan submits that in any case, the  payment  has  been  made
prior to 1.1.2014, the date on which  the  2013  Act  came  into  force,  by
depositing the same in Court in December, 2013.
We are afraid that the above submissions cannot be appreciated.  Even  going
by the list of dates as  given  in  the  SLP  paper  book,  it  is  only  on
22.2.2002,  the  appellant  had  made  the  payment  of  Rs.1,60,000,00,00/-
(rupees on hundred and sixty crores only) to the Land Acquisition  Collector
on account of compensation to be paid to the land  owners.   The  Award  was
passed in  the  year  1986,  and  the  possession,  even  according  to  the
appellant had  been  taken  on  04.01.2002  but  the  payment  to  the  Land
Acquisition Collector was made only on 22.2.2002.
Be that as it  may,  in  terms  of  Section  24(2)  of  the  Right  to  Fair
Compensation  and  Transparency  in  Land  Acquisition,  Rehabilitation  and
Resettlement Act, 2013  (in  short,  the  Act),  in  the  event  either  the
possession not being taken 5 years prior to 1.1.2014,  or  the  compensation
not paid to the land owners as  on  1.1.2014,  the  acquisition  proceedings
shall be deemed to have lapsed.  The  question  of  depositing  in  treasury
even according to the Standing Orders arises only in  case  the  land  owner
does not receive the same when the Award is passed, or when the  land  owner
does not turn up despite notice for receipt of the amount, or in  the  event
of any inter se dispute.  There is no case for the appellant that there  was
any offer of payment of money at the time of passing the  Award.   There  is
also no case for the appellant that after the Award, notice  was  issued  to
the land owners requesting them to receive the compensation. There  is  also
no case that any effort was taken by  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector,  in
terms of the Standing Orders for disbursing the  compensation  to  the  land
owners. Only in  the  above-mentioned  circumstances,  the  Standing  Orders
contemplate deposit in treasury.

The question of deposit in Court arises only in the event of  a  contingency
as provided under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.   Section
31(2) of the Act reads as under:-

“31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.-

                    xxx         xxx        xxx        xxx

(2). If they shall not consent to receive it,  or  if  there  be  no  person
competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to  the  title
to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the  Collector
shall deposit the amount of compensation in the Court to which  a  reference
under Section 18 would be submitted.

      Provided that any person admitted to be interested  may  receive  such
payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:

      Provided also that no person who has  received  the  amount  otherwise
than under protest shall be entitled to make any application  under  section
18:

       Provided  also  that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  affect   the
liability of any person, who may receive  the  whole  or  any  part  of  any
compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person  lawfully
entitled thereto.”

There is no case for the  appellant  that  any  of  such  contingencies  had
arisen compelling the Land Acquisition Collector for depositing  the  amount
of compensation in Court.  Quite strangely, what is deposited  in  Court  in
the year 2013 is the amount in terms of the Award passed in the  year  1986,
without any interest as provided under the Act for the  intervening  period.
Had there been a deposit in 1986, the land owner could have  sought  for  an
investment of the money in  interest  bearing  deposits  or  other  approved
securities, as per Section 33 of the 1894 Act.  In any  case,  such  deposit
in Court which is not contemplated or permitted under Land Acquisition  Act,
1894 cannot be treated as a payment of compensation to land owners  for  the
purpose   of   Section   24(2)   of   the   2013   Act.   The   payment   of
compensation/deposit in court has to be made as  per  the  provisions  under
the 1894 Act, and, in no other way, as held by this Court in Pune  Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Versus Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and  Ors.  reported
in (2014) 3 SCC 183. The payment or deposit having not admittedly been  done
in terms of the 1894 Act, the  deeming  provision  on  lapse  under  Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act has to operate.
Shri Sharan submits that the possession having been taken long back  and  in
some cases, since various developments have also taken place, the  appellant
– Delhi Development Authority and third parties will be  visited  with  very
serious consequences.
We do not find any substance in the above submission as well. Section  24(2)
itself has given sufficient protection in such cases.  In the event  of  any
lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2), it  is  open  to
the appropriate Government, if they choose so, to initiate  proceedings  for
acquisition of such land afresh but the only rider is that  the  acquisition
should be in accordance with the provisions under 2013 Act.
Therefore, without prejudice to the liberty available to  the  appellant  to
initiate steps  afresh  for  acquisition  of  the  subject  land  under  the
provisions of the 2013 Act, this appeal is dismissed.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances  of  this  case,  the  appellant  is
given a period of one year to exercise its  liberty  granted  under  Section
24(2)  of  the  Right  to  Fair  Compensation  and  Transparency   in   Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,  2013  for  initiation  of
the acquisition proceedings afresh.
We make  it  clear  that  in  case  no  fresh  acquisition  proceedings  are
initiated within the said period of  one  year  from  today,  by  issuing  a
Notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, the  appellant  shall  return
the physical possession of the land to the original land owner.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.


                                                       ...................J.
                                                          (KURIAN JOSEPH)


                                                 .........................J.
                                                   (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi,
August 31, 2016