2016 Supreme(SC) 695

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – APPELLANT
Versus
SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5811 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8857 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No. 28304 of 2015)
Decided On : 09-09-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Compensation has to be tendered on the date of making the award itself.
The word ‘or’ in section 24(2) cannot be read as ‘and’.
Payment into the treasury permissible only when persons having been served notice u/s 12(2) are absent at the time the award is delivered.
Where possession was taken over four decades after the notification u/s 4 and land owners not paid compensation even after 13 years of taking over possession, the acquisition would be non est.
Sale of acquired land subsequent to notification u/s 6 is illegal.
Deeming fiction in section 24(2) was consciously enacted because in cases where compensation has not been paid, and physical possession handed over to the State, vesting has taken place, after which land acquisition proceedings could be said to have ended.
Possession of open piece of land taken over by Panchnama signed by all necessary officers would be valid.

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 11, 12, 31 and 34 – Award is required to be made on the day fixed, after the inquiry contemplated u/s 11 – Soon after the award is made, immediate notice of the award is to be given to such of the persons interested as are not present personally u/s 12(2) – Compensation to be tendered on the date of making the award itself – In case interested persons refuse to accept compensation the same has to be deposited in reference court – Section 12(2) r/w section 31 – Interest would be payable in terms of section 34 where compensation is neither paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land. (Para 10)

       (1996) 1 SCC 731; (2001) 7 SCC 211; (2005) 12 SCC 508 – Relied upon

       (b) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – State cannot expropriate from a citizen his property if an award has been made and the necessary steps to complete acquisition, including taking of physical possession of land and payment of compensation, have not been taken for a period of five years or more – ‘Or’ cannot be read as ‘and’ – Interpretation of statute. (Para 14)

       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 31, and Para 71, 73 and 74, Standing Order No. 28 of 1909 – Standing order furthers section 31 by insisting on direct payment of compensation as soon as the award is announced – Payment into the treasury permissible only when persons having been served notice u/s 12(2) are absent at the time the award is delivered – Para 74(V) not a separate mode of payment by itself – Such deposit in the treasury referable only to Section 31(1) – Cannot be a substitute for deposit before the reference court u/s 31(2). (Para 18, 19)

       (2014) 3 SCC 183 – Relied upon

       (2014) 6 SCC 583; (2014) 6 SCC 564; (2015) 3 SCC 353; (2014) 15 SCC 410; (2015) 3 SCC 597; (2015) 4 SCC 347; (2015) 4 SCC 325; (2015) 3 SCC 206; 2015 (3) SCALE 203; AIR 2015 SC 3186; AIR 2015 SC 2683; 2015 (7) SCALE 191; SLP (CC) No.5569 of 2015; 2016 (5) SCALE 636; (1993) 4 SCC 369 – Referred

       (d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 31 r/w Standing Order No. 28 of 1909, and section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Neither tender nor payment made – DDA not ready with compensation payable on the day the award was pronounced – Handing over such compensation to Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) five years after the award was pronounced – LAC not doing anything – Depositing the amount of compensation in the Court 11 years thereafter – Instantly, possession taken over four decades after the notification u/s 4 – Land owners not yet paid compensation even after 13 years of taking over possession – The acquisition held non est. (Para 20)

       (e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 12(2) r/w Paragraphs 3 and 4, Standing instruction, Government of NCT of Delhi dated 12th May, 2006 – Notice of award u/s 12(2) can only be issued after money is received by the Land Acquisition Collector, and the Collector shall not take possession of land unless and until compensation amount is received by him – Further, actual payment to land owners must be made latest within a period of 60 days. (Para 22)

       (f) Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 – Section 4 r/w section 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sale subsequent to notification u/s 6 is illegal – Compensation to be made to the original owner. (Para 23)

       (2008) 9 SCC 177 – Relied upon

       (g) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A r/w Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Interpretation of statute – Words “lapsed” in section 11A and “deemed to have lapsed” in section 24(2) – Deeming fiction enacted in section 24(2) consciously because in cases where compensation has not been paid, and physical possession handed over to the State, vesting has taken place, after which land acquisition proceedings could be said to have ended. (Para 27)

       (1993) 4 SCC 369; (2015) 10 SCC 241 – Referred

       (h) Land acquisition – Taking over possession – Open piece of land – Taken over by Panchnama signed by all necessary officers – Held, possession was validly taken over. (Para 28, 29)

       (2012) 1 SCC 792 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       These two appeals revisit the question of the correct construction of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

       A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 24th October, 1961. Section 4 Notification was followed by a Notification under Section 6 dated 4th January, 1969, which in turn, was followed by notices issued under Section 9 on 26th April, 1983. An award relating to the land was then made by the Land Acquisition Collector, New Delhi, only on 12th December, 1997. Possession of the said land, being an open piece of land, was taken by a Panchnama dated 27th January, 2000. An affidavit that has been filed by the Commissioner, Land Management, Delhi Development Authority discloses that the requisite compensation for taking over the said land was deposited by the DDA with the Land Acquisition Collector only in the year 2002. The said affidavit goes on to state that since the land had been sold to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the present case, there was a dispute as to who would receive compensation and that, therefore, compensation could neither be paid nor tendered.

       On the eve of the coming into force of the 2013 Act (on 1st January, 2014), an application was made by the Land Acquisition Collector in the High Court of Delhi on 27th December, 2013, requesting the High Court of Delhi to accept cheques towards compensation amounts under the award dated 12th December, 1997, stating that non-deposit of compensation on or before 31st December, 2013 would adversely affect the acquisition proceedings inasmuch as the proceedings might lapse in view of the fact that the 2013 Act has been notified to take effect from 1st January, 2014. An order dated 30th December, 2013 was passed by the High Court on this application stating that the petition stands disposed of, recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land owners, the cheques tendered in each petition would be treated as a tender to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as on today i.e. 30th December, 2013.

       The original land holders thereafter presented a Writ Petition before the High Court of Delhi, on 26th May, 2014, stating that as possession had not been taken and as compensation had neither been tendered nor paid to the petitioner, the requisite conditions of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would be met, and that, as a result, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. No affidavit in reply was filed to the aforesaid writ petition. By the impugned judgment dated 18th November, 2014, the High Court of Delhi allowed the said petition based on the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation, and other judgments following the same.

       Finding of the Court;

       Pune Municipal Corporation does not require to be revisited.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.