Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8477 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8467 of 2015)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S)

       Versus

KUSHAM JAIN AND ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S)

   J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1.             Leave granted.  2. The  appellant  is  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  dated 10.11.2014   passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Delhi  in  Writ  Petition (Civil) No. 4232 of 2014. The High Court has granted a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings culminating in the Award dated 19.9.1986  in respect  of 1  bigha 4  biswas of  land in  Khasra No. 89/23/2 in village Palam, New Delhi has lapsed.  At paragraph 2 of the judgment, the admitted position of non payment of compensation

Page 2

2

has been recorded by the High Court. Paragraph 2 of the judgment reads as under :-  

“2. Though  the  respondents  claimed  that possession  of  the  said  land  was  taken  on 04.01.2002,  the  petitioner  disputes  this  and maintains that physical possession has not been taken.   However,  insofar  as  the  issue  of compensation  is  concerned,  it  is  an  admitted position that it has not been paid.”

 3.  Shri  Amrendra  Sharan,  learned  senior  counsel appearing for the appellant-Delhi Development Authority submits that the requisitioning authority had already paid the amounts to the Land Acquisition  Collector  and  the  appellant  may  not  be  visited  with adverse consequences for the delay, if any, on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector in disbursing the amount.  Shri Sharan submits that in any case, the payment has been made prior to 1.1.2014, the date on which the 2013 Act came into force, by depositing the same in Court in December, 2013.    4. We are afraid that the above submissions cannot be appreciated.  Even going by the list of dates as given in the SLP paper book, it is only on 22.2.2002, the appellant had made the payment of Rs.1,60,000,00,00/- (rupees on hundred and sixty crores only) to the Land Acquisition Collector on account of compensation to be paid to the land owners.  The Award was passed in the year 1986, and the possession, even according to the appellant had been taken on

Page 3

3

04.01.2002 but the payment to the Land Acquisition Collector was made only on 22.2.2002.  5. Be that as it may, in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right  to  Fair  Compensation  and  Transparency  in  Land  Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the Act), in the event  either  the  possession  not  being  taken  5  years  prior  to 1.1.2014, or the compensation not paid to the land owners as on 1.1.2014, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The question of depositing in treasury even according to the Standing Orders arises only in case the land owner does not receive the same when the Award is passed, or when the land owner does not turn up despite notice for receipt of the amount, or in the event of any inter se dispute.  There is no case for the appellant that there was any offer of payment of money at the time of passing the Award. There is also no case for the appellant that after the Award, notice was  issued  to  the  land  owners  requesting  them  to  receive  the compensation. There is also no case that any effort was taken by the Land  Acquisition  Collector,  in  terms  of  the  Standing  Orders  for disbursing  the  compensation  to  the  land  owners.  Only  in  the above-mentioned  circumstances,  the  Standing  Orders  contemplate deposit in treasury.

6. The question of deposit in Court arises only in the event of a contingency as provided under Section 31(2) of the Land

Page 4

4

Acquisition Act, 1894.  Section 31(2) of the Act reads as under:-  

“31.  Payment  of  compensation  or  deposit  of same in Court.-

xxx xxx xxx xxx (2). If they shall not consent to receive it, or  if  there  be  no  person  competent  to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or  as  to  the  apportionment  of  it,  the Collector  shall  deposit  the  amount  of compensation  in  the  Court  to  which  a reference  under  Section  18  would  be submitted.

Provided that any person admitted to be interested  may  receive  such  payment  under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:

Provided  also  that  no  person  who  has received  the  amount  otherwise  than  under protest  shall  be  entitled  to  make  any application under section 18:

Provided  also  that  nothing  herein contained  shall  affect  the  liability  of  any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.”

7. There is no case for the appellant that any of such contingencies had arisen compelling the Land Acquisition Collector for depositing the amount of compensation in Court.  Quite strangely, what is deposited in Court in the year 2013 is the amount in terms of the Award passed in the year 1986, without any interest as provided under the Act for the intervening period.  Had there been a deposit

Page 5

5

in 1986, the land owner could have sought for an investment of the money in interest bearing deposits or other approved securities, as per Section 33 of the 1894 Act.  In any case, such deposit in Court which is not contemplated or permitted under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be treated as a payment of compensation to land owners for the purpose of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The payment of compensation/deposit in court has to be made as per the provisions under the 1894 Act, and, in no other way, as held by this Court in Pune  Municipal  Corporation  and  Anr.  Versus  Harakchand  Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183. The payment or deposit having not admittedly been done in terms of the 1894 Act, the deeming provision  on  lapse  under  Section  24(2)  of  the  2013  Act  has  to operate.  8. Shri Sharan submits that the possession having been taken long back and in some cases, since various developments have also taken place, the appellant – Delhi Development Authority and third parties will be visited with very serious consequences.  9. We do not find any substance in the above submission as well. Section 24(2) itself has given sufficient protection in such cases.  In the event of any lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2), it is open to the appropriate Government, if they choose so, to initiate proceedings for acquisition of such land afresh  but  the  only  rider  is  that  the  acquisition  should  be  in accordance with the provisions under 2013 Act.   

Page 6

6

10. Therefore, without prejudice to the liberty available to the appellant to initiate steps afresh for acquisition of the subject land under the provisions of the 2013 Act, this appeal is dismissed.  11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency  in  Land  Acquisition,  Rehabilitation  and  Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh.  12. We make it clear that in case no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period of one year from today, by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, the appellant shall return the physical possession of the land to the original land owner.   13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

            ...................J.                          (KURIAN JOSEPH)

                 .........................J.                               (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, August 31, 2016