DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. versus PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. on 6 May 2022

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment and orderEdated 03.02.2015 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents wasallowed in view of the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court inGyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors[1].

2. The respondent purchased the land measuring 7 Bigha 1 Biswasituated in village Sayoorpur, Tehsil- Mehrauli, New Delhi on 25.11.2011.FThe original land owner had filed a Writ Petition No. 2276 of 1985challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the LandAcquisition Act,1894[2] dated 25.11.1980 and 20.05.1985 respectively. TheLand Acquisition Collector had announced the award on 14.05.1987.The said writ petition filed by the original land owner was dismissed on03.03.2005 in view of the order passed on the same date in Chatro DeviGv. Union of India & Ors.[3]. Subsequently, a review application was filedby the original land owner inter alia on the ground that the objectionsfiled under Section 5A were not considered. It was found by the High 1 W.P.(C) No. 1393 of 20142 For short the ActH3 2005 SCC Online Delhi 279

1 W.P.(C) No. 1393 of 20142 For short the ActH3 2005 SCC Online Delhi 279

Court that the original land owner has not given any date of filing of theobjection, nor the details as to when and before whom the objectionswere filed. The objections were not attached with the writ petition either.Consequently, the review application was dismissed on 27.04.2006. Itwas thereafter, the purchaser has purchased the property on 25.11.2011.

3. The Division Bench in Gyanender Singh noticed the paymentdeposited by the appellant and held as under:

“It is absolutely clear from the above extracts that unless anduntil the compensation is tendered to the persons interested, meredepositing of the compensation in the court would not be sufficient.To be clear, compensation cannot be regarded as having beenpaid merely on the deposit of the same in court unless and until ithas first been offered to the person interested and he has refusedto accept the same. In the present case, it is an admitted positionthat the compensation amount was tendered in this Court withoutfirst being offered to the persons interested (petitioners).Therefore, in view of the clear dictum of the Supreme Court inPune Municipal Corporation (supra), such deposit ofcompensation in court cannot be regarded as a payment ofcompensation as contemplated under the provisions of Section24(2) of the 2013 Act.”

4. The High Court declared the acquisition proceedings as lapsedin view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to FairCompensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013[4].

5. Such provision has been interpreted in Indore DevelopmentAuthority v. Manoharlal & Ors.[5] wherein it has been held that twinconditions of non-payment of compensation and/or not taking possessionwould lead to the deemed lapse of proceedings. Therefore, if any of thetwin conditions is not satisfied, the proceedings cannot be declared to belapsed.

6. The stand of the appellant was that even after the dismissal ofthe writ petition filed by the original land owner, interim orders in respectof the same acquisition in other writ petitions were in operation, therefore,the appellant could not have taken possession of the land.

4 For short, the ‘2013 Act’5 (2020) 8 SCC 129

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7. It was also pointed out that the compensation was deposited byfiling an application before the High Court on 30.12.2013 since the deposithad not been accepted by the Additional District Judge, South on accountof the Court being closed for winter vacations. Thus, an application underArticle 227 of the Constitution- CM(M) No. 1407 of 2013 was filedbefore the High Court. The appellant had thus deposited cheques beforeBthe High Court for the amounts payable to original land owner namelyBalkishan S/o Ram Ratan Kapayi such as a sum of Rs.14,61,188.25 inrespect of land measuring 53 Bigha and 9 Biswa, Rs. 4,21,878.93 forland measuring 13 Bigha and 6 Biswa and Rs.47,798.97 for landmeasuring 1 Bigha and 12 Biswa. The High Court had passed an orderCthat the same shall be treated as tendered to the Court of AdditionalDistrict Judge on 30.12.2013. The High Court passed the following orderon 30.12.2013:- “2. As vaguely pleaded in para 10 and as orally explained, theurgency to file these petitions is that if compensation assessed isDnot paid or deposited the proceedings under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 lapse.

3. It is pleaded in paragraph 4 that the concerned Court is presentlyclosed during winter vacations and shall reopen on January 02,2014.

E4. Enclosed with the petitions as Annexure-2 are cheques drawnin the name of ‘ADJ, Delhi’.

5. A meaningful reading of the petition would reveal that theintentment is to tender the amounts on or before December 31,2013.

F

6. The petitions stand disposed of recording that without prejudiceto the rights and contentions of the land holders the chequestendered in each petition (being Annexure P-2) would be treatedas a tender to the Court of the learned Additional District JudgeDelhi as of today i.e. December 30, 2013.G

7. The Registry is directed to remove the cheques annexed asAnnexure 2 and keep them in safe custody till reopening of theCourt. On the reopening the cheques shall be sent to the Court ofthe concerned Additional District Judge Delhi...................”

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the H

order of the High Court cannot be sustained in law for two reasons.Firstly, the respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice underSections 4 and 6 of the Act and in fact after the award of the LandAcquisition Collector. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in a separatejudgment delivered today in the matter of Delhi Development Authorityv. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd.[6], subsequent purchaser is not entitled toclaim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act.

9. Secondly, the finding that compensation was not offered to theland owners and therefore the deposit in the Court cannot be regardedas payment of compensation is again not tenable in view of the judgmentin Manohar Lal wherein this Court held as under:

“202. Section 24(2) deals with the expression where compensationhas not been paid. It would mean that it has not been tendered forpayment under Section 31(1).

xxxxxxxxx

205. The word “paid” in Section 31(1) to the landowner cannotinclude in its ambit the expression “deposited” in court. Depositcannot be said to be payment made to landowners. Deposit is onbeing prevented from payment. However, in case there is a tenderof the amount that is to mean amount is made available to thelandowner that would be a discharge of the obligation to make thepayment and in that event such a person cannot be penalised forthe default in making the payment. In default to deposit in court,the liability is to make the payment of interest under Section 34 ofthe 1894 Act.

xxxxxxxxx

207. In our considered opinion, there is a breach of obligation todeposit even if it is taken that amount to be deposited in theReference Court in exigencies being prevented from payment asprovided in Section 31(2). The default will not have the effect ofreopening the concluded proceedings. The legal position andconsequence which prevailed from 1893 till 2013 on failure todeposit was only the liability for interest and all those transactionswere never sought to be invalidated by the provisions contained inSection 24. It is only in the case where in a pending proceeding A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

for a period of five years or more, the steps have not been takenfor taking possession and for payment of compensation, then thereis a lapse under Section 24(2). In case amount has not beendeposited with respect to majority of landholdings, highercompensation has to follow. Both lapse and higher compensationare qualified with the condition of period of 5 years or more.

208. It was submitted that mere tender of amount is not payment.The amount has to be actually paid. In our opinion, when amounthas been tendered, the obligation has been fulfilled by the Collector.Landowners cannot be forced to receive it. In case a person hasnot accepted the amount wants to take the advantage of non-payment, though the amount has remained (sic unpaid) due to hisown act. It is not open to him to contend that the amount has notbeen paid to him, as such, there should be lapse of the proceedings.Even in a case when offer for payment has been made but notdeposited, liability to pay amount along with interest subsist and ifnot deposited for majority of holding, for that adequate provisionshave been given in the proviso also to Section 24(2). The schemeof the 2013 Act in Sections 77 and 80 is also the same as thatprovided in Sections 31 and 34 of the 1894 Act.

xxx

xxx

xxx

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) ofthe 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court.The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso toSection 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect tomajority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as onthe date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with theprovisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interestunder Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit ofcompensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of landacquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect tothe majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation underthe 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date ofnotification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.”

DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDINGDEPARTMENT v. PAWAN KUMAR [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

10. In view of above, and for the reasons recorded in a separatejudgment delivered today in Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., the order passedby the High Court is not sustainable and therefore, the same is set aside.The writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed.

11. The appeal is allowed.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H