Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ujjal Bhuyan, N.R. Borkar, JJ.
Premier Limited - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (S T) No. 2511 of 2020
Decided On : 03-08-2020
RAILWAYS ACT, 1989 - LAND ACQUISITION - SPECIAL RAILWAY PROJECT - NOTIFICATION - OBJECTION - AWARD - VESTING OF LAND IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION - POSSESSION OF LAND - ENCROACHMENTS - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a public limited company, owned 28,672 sq. mtrs. of land at village Bhopar, Thane which was required by the Government of India for a special railway project called 'Western Dedicated Freight Corridor'. Notification dated 02.07.2015 was issued by the first respondent under section 20-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) declaring the intention to acquire various lands including the land in question belonging to the petitioner. Final award was passed by the competent authority on 06.05.2017. Petitioner accepted the final award and remained present in the office of the competent authority on the notified date along with all necessary details to enable the competent authority to release the determined compensation to the petitioner. Unfortunately, the compensation determined as payable to the petitioner was not paid and wrongfully withheld.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the payment of compensation to the person(s) entitled to is not dependent upon handing over of possession of the land. There is no negative statutory mandate in this regard. The draftsman has consciously placed the provision dealing with taking over of possession after the provision dealing with deposit and payment of the awarded compensation amount. This is made further clear by the language employed in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 20- H on the one hand and the language employed in sub-section (1) of section 20-I on the other hand. In the case of the former, after the award is passed, the central government shall deposit the compensation amount with the competent authority before taking possession of the land (emphasis ours) and as soon as the deposit is made, competent authority shall make the payment to the person or persons entitled thereto. While no time limit is prescribed what is unmissable is that before taking over possession of the land the central government has to deposit the compensation amount with the competent authority and as soon as the deposit is made, competent authority shall make the payment to the person(s) entitled, clearly indicating an element of urgency. On the other hand a period of sixty days is prescribed for surrender or delivery of possession under sub-section (1) of section 20-I. This is clearly indicative of the fact that payment of compensation is not contingent upon handing over of possession.
Issues: Whether the payment of compensation is contingent upon handing over of possession of the land?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the payment of compensation to the person(s) entitled to is not dependent upon handing over of possession of the land. There is no negative statutory mandate in this regard. The draftsman has consciously placed the provision dealing with taking over of possession after the provision dealing with deposit and payment of the awarded compensation amount. This is made further clear by the language employed in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 20- H on the one hand and the language employed in sub-section (1) of section 20-I on the other hand. In the case of the former, after the award is passed, the central government shall deposit the compensation amount with the competent authority before taking possession of the land (emphasis ours) and as soon as the deposit is made, competent authority shall make the payment to the person or persons entitled thereto. While no time limit is prescribed what is unmissable is that before taking over possession of the land the central government has to deposit the compensation amount with the competent authority and as soon as the deposit is made, competent authority shall make the payment to the person(s) entitled, clearly indicating an element of urgency. On the other hand a period of sixty days is prescribed for surrender or delivery of possession under sub-section (1) of section 20-I. This is clearly indicative of the fact that payment of compensation is not contingent upon handing over of possession.
Final Decision: The Court issued a writ of mandamus to the competent authority to comply with the statutory requirement and pay the due compensation to the petitioner and such other person(s) who may lodge claim thereto as per award number 54 of 2015 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Court also directed the competent authority to pay interest @ 6 per cent per annum on the compensation amount to be paid to the petitioner from the date of deposit of the awarded amount by the central government till the date of payment to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Ankit Lohia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1; Mrs. Rupali Akolkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2; and Mr. Rajpurohit, learned AGP for respondent Nos.3 and 4-State.
2. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to release the compensation amount of Rs.21,71,56,088.00 in favour of the petitioner as per final award dated 06.05.2017 along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of the final award till payment or realization thereof. An alternative prayer has been made for a direction to the competent authority to release part compensation payment of Rs.15,38,13,908.00 along with interest @12% p.a. with effect from 29.12.2019 in favour of the petitioner as per interim compromise arrangement dated 27.12.2019. A further prayer is made that if the Court comes to the conclusion that respondents are not liable to pay compensation as per the final award dated 06.05.2017, then to set aside and quash the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question along with the final award dated 06.05.2017 and transfer back the title and possession of the land in question to the petitioner.
3. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a public limited company, earlier known as 'Premier Automobile Limited', incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It has its registered office at Mumbai Pune Road, Chinchwad in the district of Pune and corporate office at Nariman Point, Mumbai. It is presently engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of CNC machines, heavy engineering and parts and components thereof. Being a listed company, it has approximately 35,000 shareholders with a large workforce.
3.1. Petitioner was the lawful owner of 28,672 sq. mtrs. of land at village Bhopar, Thane which was required by the Government of India for a special railway project called 'Western Dedicated Freight Corridor'.
3.2. In view of such requirement, notification dated 02.07.2015 was issued by the first respondent under section 20-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) declaring the intention to acquire various lands including the land in question belonging to the petitioner. As per the legal requirement, the said notification was published in two local newspapers, one in English and the other in vernacular, i.e., Indian Express and Dainik Sakal on 01.08.2015. Petitioner did not raise any objection to acquisition of the land in question though by such acquisition the remaining portion of land not acquired would be rendered economically unviable.
3.3. During the year 2015-16, a joint survey of the land in question was carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Kalyan, district Thane to ascertain the measurement of the land and for demarcation of the land in question. According to the petitioner, an internal report was forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent on 28.04.2016 and thereafter by the second respondent to the first respondent in accordance with section 20-E of the Act. Following the same, in exercise of powers conferred by section 20-E(1) and (2) of the Act, first respondent vide notification dated 06.06.2016 published in the official gazette of India on 07.06.2016 and in the newspapers on 20.07.2016 declared that on publication of the notification in the official gazette, the land set out in the schedule thereunder including the land in question would vest absolutely with the central government. By the said notification, first respondent also called upon persons interested in the land to submit their claims in writing to the third respondent within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification.
3.4. It is stated that office of the third respondent had also published a joint survey report dated 20.07.2016 thereby listing out the names of unauthorized occupants and the area encr
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
