SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Del) 879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI - Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 12143 of 2015
Decided On : 15-01-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Abhimanjyu Singh Khatri, and Mr. Ankit Panwar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Advocates, Mr. Raghwendra Pandey and Mr. Rakesh Mittal and Ms. Swati Arya, Advocates with Mr. Sanjeev Pauchori, Officer, Ms. Ruchika Rathii, Advocate.

The mandatory nature of the provision for deposit of compensation in the court and the interpretation of 'paid' under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Declaration of Lapsed Acquisition - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 4, 6 & 17(1) - Section 31(1) & (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 32, 33 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings for their land stand lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation. The land was initially acquired for the Bankner Link Drain, and physical possession was taken, but compensation was not paid.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compensation had not been tendered to the petitioner, and the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, were satisfied. The court declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land had lapsed, and the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the New Act.

Issues: Non-payment of compensation for the acquired land, interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and entitlement to compensation under the New Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 31(1) & (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Sections 32, 33 and 34 of the same Act, as well as the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the provision for deposit of compensation in the court and held that the compensation shall be regarded as 'paid' if it has been offered to the interested person and deposited in the court.

Final Decision: The court declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and ordered that the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the New Act.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioner falling in Khasra No.21/10 min(1-14) and 22/6 min(1-06) to the extent of 1/2 share, situated in the revenue estate of village Mamurpur Narela, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’) stand lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2013 Act’), as compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the compensation has not been tendered although possession of the land falling in Khasra no.21/10 (0-03) and 22/6 (1-06) has been taken, while physical possession of the land falling in Khasra no.21/10 (1-11) is with the petitioner.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits, on instructions, that the petitioner is only seeking compensation for the reason that initially the land was acquired for the purpose of Bankner Link Drain. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to counter affidavit filed by the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, as per which after the land was acquired, physical possession was handed over to the Department for Construction of Bankner Link Drain which was duly built and is running smoothly.

3. In this case, a Notification under Section 4, 6 & 17(1) was issued on 24.04.1979 and an Award bearing No.120/1980-81 was passed on 05.03.1981. Counsel for the petitioner has ruled upon a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183.

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, as per which the compensation amount has been deposited in RD. Para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by LAC reads as under :

“9. That the petitioners in the writ petition para 9 has mentioned that :

‘That the Land Acquisition Collector has neither paid nor tendered the compensation to the petitioners, in respect of his acquired land falling in Khasra no.21/10(1-14) and 22/6(1-6) acquired under Award No.120/80-81 till date’.

It is pertinent to mention herein that the Answering Respondent Nos.2 and 5 had deposited the compensation amount vide cheque no.410648 dated 12.06.1981 in RD as per record. It is submitted that none of the recorded owners or the petitioners had claimed or approached the answering respondent regarding the compensation amount, the compensation amount which is still lying in RD. It is further submitted that the petitioners have made baseless and frivolous contention in the writ petition, which are misleading this Hon’ble Court”.

6. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Irrigation and Flood Control Department. Para 2 of the counter affidavit filed by the Irrigation and Flood Control Department reads as under :

“2. That the relief sought in the writ petition is not available to the petitioner, in that the land was acquired as per law and its physical possession was handed over to Irrigation and Flood Control Department for construction of Bankner Link Drain, which was duly built and is running smoothly, therefore, the question of quashing the Award does not arise”.

7. It is also the case of the LAC and the Irrigation and Flood Control Department that the possession of the subject land has been taken but the compensation has not been paid.

8. In our view, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (supra). Paras 14 to 20 of aforesaid decision read 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












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top