Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral):--

1. The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

2. The Award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) was made vide Award No. 15/1987-88 dated 27.06.1987 and it was in respect of, inter alia, the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 926/1(0-7), 928(4-7), 942 (4-16), 943 (0-4), 944 min (0-4) and 946/1 (2-3) measuring 12 bighas 1 biswas in all in village Chattarpur, New Delhi.

3. It is an admitted position that the physical possession of the subject land was not taken by the land acquiring agency. It is also an admitted position that the compensation has not been paid in respect of the subject land except insofar as khasra number 946/1(2-3) is concerned. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the compensation for the said khasra was deposited before the court of the District Judge. However, no date or particulars are given. In any event, it is not mentioned that the deposit was made after an offer had been made to the petitioner and he had refused to accept the same.

4. With regard to the such a deposit being made, the law has been settled in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-

“14. Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon the Collector, on making an award under Section 11, to tender payment of compensation to persons interested entitled thereto according to award. It further mandates the Collector to make payment of compensation to them unless prevented by one of the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2). The contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2) are: (i) the persons interested entitled to compensation do not consent to receive it, (ii) there is no person competent to alienate the land, and (iii) there is dispute as to the title to receive compensation or as to the apportionment of it. If due to any of the contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2), the Collector is prevented from making payment of compensation to the persons interested who are entitled to compensation, then the Collector is required to deposit the compensation in the court to which reference under Section 18 may be made.

15. Simply put, Section 31 of the 1894 Act makes provision for payment of compensation or deposit of the same in the court. This provision requires that the Collector should tender payment of compensation as awarded by him to the persons interested who are entitled to compensation. If due to happening of any contingency as contemplated in Section 31(2), the compensation has not been paid, the Collector should deposit the amount of compensation in the court to which reference can be made under Section 18.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

17. While enacting Section 24(2), Parliament definitely had in its view Section 31 of the 1894 Act. From that one thing is clear that it did not intend to equate the word “paid” to “offered” or “tendered”. But at the same time, we do not think that by use of the word “paid”, Parliament intended receipt of compensation by the landowners/persons interested. In our view, it is not appropriate to give a literal construction to the expression “paid” used in this subsection [sub-section (2) of Section 24]. If a literal construction were to be given, then it would amount to ignoring the procedure, mode and manner of deposit provided in Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act in the event of happening of any of the contingencies contemplated therein which may prevent the Collector from making actual payment of compensation. We are of the view, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document