ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The only issue involved in the present case is whether the provision of Section 24(1)(b) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’) is governed by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the said Act or it has to be read as part of section 24(2).

3. For the purpose of Delhi Metro Railways, land acquisition was initiated by issuing a Notification on 04.06.2009 under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1894’).

4. As per letter dated 16.6.2009, written by the appellant-Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC, for short) to the Land & Building Department of the Delhi Government, 80% of the land compensation amounting to Rs. 3,28,56,687.49p. (Rupees Three Crores, Twenty Eight Lakhs, Fifty-Six Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty-Seven and Forty Nine Paise only) was deposited by the appellant vide cheque dated 15.6.2009. The matter travelled to this Court and this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 had been issued on 9.10.2009 and possession of the land was taken by the DMRC. Award was pronounced on 14.9.2011 by the Land Acquisition Collector (‘the LAC’ for short). On 16.9.2009, the DMRC deposited the amount of compensation determined by the LAC. The balance amount i.e. Rs. 60,81,04,200/- (Rupees Sixty Crores, Eighty One Lakhs, Four Thousand, Two Hundred only) was demanded by the Land & Building Department by writing a letter dated 15.10.2011 and that amount was also paid, vide cheque dated 02.11.2011. It was deposited on 3.11.2011. Thus, the DMRC has deposited the total assessed compensation. The DMRC was in possession of the land and after development, it has been handed over for the public purpose, i.e. MRTS project, for construction of Chattarpur Metro Station and Electrical Relay Sub-Station to cater to the Metro Line from Mehrauli to Gurgaon and Chattarpur Metro Station. The claimants have already sought reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, for enhancement of the compensation, which is stated to be pending. In the High Court, certain writ petitions were filed by the claimants in which, vide its judgment and order dated 21.5.2015, it was directed that the acquisition would stand, but the compensation would be paid to the writ petitioners under the Act of 2013. Hence, the appeals have been preferred by DMRC in this Court.

5. It was urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that Award has been passed within 5 years prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013; the Act came into force on 1.1.2014; the Award was passed on 14.04.2011. Thus, the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 would be applicable and such, proceedings would not lapse and compensation would not be payable as per proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The view taken by the High Court, that the proviso to section 24(2) is applicable, is not correct. The amount has already been deposited before the Land Acquisition Collector. Rs. 21 Crores is said to have been paid towards compensation. The High Court has, thus, erred in holding that the compensation is required to be paid under the Act of 2013.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners contended that the proviso to Section 24(2) has to be read as part of Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013, and it cannot be read as part of Sub-Section (2) of Section 24, as legislature have carved out a different independent provision which would be applicable to an Award passed, as contemplated under Section 24(1)(b), and since in the instant case, the amount has not been deposited with respect to the majority of the land holdings in the account of the beneficiaries, the compensation becomes payable to all the beneficiaries under the Act of 2013. Reli