BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr. Sidharath Panda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 and 5 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.

2. By way of this writ petition 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. The petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “1894 Act”) and in respect of which Award No. 15/1987-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land, comprised in Khasra Nos. 1033/1 (2-9), 1041/1/2 (1-2), 1041/2 (2-14), 1042/2 (3-11) & 1042/1 (1-5), measuring 14 bighas and 6 biswas in all in Village Chattarpur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. The petitioner had also claimed relief in respect of Khasra No. 1034/1 but according to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that Khasra number was not a subject matter of the said Award and therefore, it is clear that Khasra No. 1034/1 is outside acquisition, in any event, because no award has been made during the prescribed time in respect thereof under the 1894 Act. This writ petition is therefore concerned with the land in Khasra numbers other than Khasra No. 1034/1.

4. In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not been taken. This is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation in respect of the same was deposited in the treasury, though the same has not been paid to the land owner nor was it offered to the land owner.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the second proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Ordinance”). The newly added proviso reads as under:-

“Provided further that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a court or in any designated account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded.”

(underlining added)

6. On a plain reading of the proviso, it is evident that its purpose is to compute the period of five years referred to in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Certain periods are to be excluded in computing the said period referred to in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The periods to be excluded are:

(1) the period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court; or

(2) the period specified in the Award of a Tribunal for taking possession; or

(3) such period where possession has been taken but the compensation is lying deposited in a court or in any designated account maintained for this purpose.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents are relying on the third alternative inasmuch as it has been contended that the amount for compensation has been placed in the government treasury. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, this amounts to deposit “in any designated account maintained for this purpose”.