Back
2015 Supreme(SC) 1108
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
RATTAN SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR – RESPONDENTS
I.A. NO.4 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2851 OF 2009
WITH
SARDAR SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
I.A.NO.5 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2852 OF 2009
Decided On : 08-12-2015
IMPORTANT POINTS
When the compensation is neither made to the land owners nor deposited in the court but kept with the Collector waiting for the land owners to make application for the same. Does not amount to compensation having been made.
When the award was passed more than 5 years earlier to commencement of the 2013 Act and compensation not made to the land owners, the acquisition proceedings lapse by operation of section 24(2).
Headnote:
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) r/w section 31(1) and 18 – Expression “compensation has not been paid” – Collector enjoined u/s 31(1) to pay the compensation to the land owners; otherwise deposit the same in the court in the contingencies mentioned in section 31(2) – Reference to these contingencies occurring may be mentioned u/s 18 – Instantly, Collector neither paying the compensation to the land owners not depositing in the court – Waiting for the land owners to file an application for payment of compensation – Does not amount to compensation having been made – Award passed on 24.6.1968 predating commencement of the Act by more than five years and compensation not paid to the Appellants – Acquisition proceedings lapse by operation of section 24(2) – Respondents, if they wish, may initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (Para 6)
(2014) 3 SCC 183; (2014) 6 SCC 564; (2014) 6 SCC 583; AIR 2015 SC 3186; (2015) 8 SCC 544; (2015) 3 SCC 541; (2011) 11 SCC 506; (1996) 2 SCC 71 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Section 4 Notification was issued on 13.11.1959, followed by a Section 6 Declaration on 12.7.1966. An Award was finally passed on 24.6.1968.
The possession of the land appears to be in dispute, as the Appellants allege that mere paper possession has been taken by the Respondent, while the Respondent alleges that possession was taken on 18.1.2000.
The Appellants allege that compensation has not been paid to them.
Contention of the respondents is that since the appellants chose not to comply with the procedure for payment of compensation, it cannot be said that the compensation was not paid to them.
In the current Appeals, compensation was neither paid to the Appellants nor deposited in the appropriate Court. It has been held that the retention of it by the Land Acquisition Collector till such time as the Appellants made applications for it would not amount to compensation being paid to them.
Finding of the Court:
Retention of compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector till such time as the Appellants made applications for it would not amount to compensation being paid to them.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
1. These Appeals were admitted before the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘2013 Act’). Upon commencement thereof, the Appellants have changed the tack of their challenge by seeking to invoke the deemed lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. As we have repeatedly opined, any determination under this Section must proceed sequentially. First, the factum of an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be clearly established. The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 1.1.2014, by at least five years, i.e., the Award must have been passed on or before 1.1.2009. This having been established, if possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, may reinitiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the same land, but under the regime of the 2013 Act.
2. In the matter before us, a Section 4 Notification was issued on 13.11.1959, followed by a Section 6 Declaration on 12.7.1966. An Award was finally passed on 24.6.1968. The first requirement is thus made out. The possession of the land appears to be in dispute, as the Appellants allege that mere paper possession has been taken by the Respondent, while the Respondent alleges that possession was taken on 18.1.2000. Sagaciously, learned Counsel for the Appellants has steered away from this controversy. Instead, the Appellants allege that compensation has not been paid to them as is evident from the affidavit of the Respondent where it has asseverated thus:
“That the procedure adopted for payment of compensation is that after announcement of the Award, the land owner makes an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for payment of compensation awarded to him under the Award by submitting the documents showing his title to the land. The land owner is also required to execute a surety bond before receiving the payment of compensation. The aforesaid procedure was adopted by other land owners of this acquisition for whom different Awards were passed.”
…..
“Contents of para (11) are not correct in the manner they have been stated. The possession of the land was taken on 18.01.2000 after announcement of the Award. It is submitted that the Appellant had filed his claim in pursuance of notice issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act and had participated in the acquisition proceedings. The Appellant was even present when the Award was announced and yet he did not take any steps to receive compensation. He neither filed any application nor presented his document to show his title on the land. These are the steps required to be taken by the land owners to receive compensation. The other owners of the land, which was acquired under the same Notification, had filed the appropriate application and submitted the documents showing their title and also filed surety bond before receiving compensation. When the Appellant himself did not come forward to receive the compensation, the authorities cannot be faulted with for non-payment of compensation”.
3. The Respondent, on the other hand, has sought to contend that the procedure for payment of compensation is that after the announcement of the Award, the land owners make applications before the Land Acquisition Collector for payment of compensation by submitting documents showing their title to the land and by executing a surety bond. This procedure was followed by other land owners who then received the compensation due to them. Since the Appellants chose not to comply with this procedure, it cannot be said that the compensation was not paid to them.
4. This Court has, in a number of decisions including (1) Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183, (2) Union of India vs. Shiv Ra
