Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NO.4

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2851 OF 2009   

RATTAN SINGH ..      APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR            ..    RESPONDENTS

W I T H

I.A.NO.5

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2852 OF 2009

SARDAR  SINGH ..      APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.            ..    RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

Page 2

2

1. These Appeals were admitted before the commencement of the Right to  

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and  

Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘2013 Act’).  Upon commencement thereof,  

the Appellants have changed the tack of their challenge by seeking to invoke the  

deemed lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.  As we have  

repeatedly  opined,  any  determination  under  this  Section  must  proceed  

sequentially.   First,  the  factum of  an  Award  under  Section  11  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, 1894, must be clearly established. The said Award must predate  

the commencement of  the Act,  i.e.,  1.1.2014, by at  least  five years,  i.e.,  the  

Award  must  have  been  passed  on  or  before  1.1.2009.   This  having  been  

established, if possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation not  

paid,  then the  proceedings  shall  be deemed to  have  lapsed.   Thereafter,  the  

appropriate Government, if it so chooses, may reinitiate acquisition proceedings  

in respect of the same land, but under the regime of the 2013 Act.

2 In  the  matter  before  us,  a  Section  4  Notification  was  issued  on  

13.11.1959, followed by a Section 6 Declaration on 12.7.1966.  An Award was  

finally  passed  on  24.6.1968.   The  first  requirement  is  thus  made  out.   The  

possession of the land appears to be in dispute, as the Appellants allege that  

mere paper possession has been taken by the Respondent, while the Respondent  

alleges that possession was taken on 18.1.2000.  Sagaciously, learned Counsel  

for  the  Appellants  has  steered  away  from  this  controversy.  Instead,  the

Page 3

3

Appellants allege that compensation has not been paid to them as is evident  

from the affidavit of the Respondent where it has asseverated thus:

“That the procedure adopted for payment of compensation is  that after announcement of the Award, the land owner makes an  application before the Land Acquisition Collector for payment  of compensation awarded to him under the Award by submitting  the documents showing his title to the land.  The land owner is  also  required  to  execute  a  surety  bond  before  receiving  the  payment  of  compensation.  The  aforesaid  procedure  was  adopted  by  other  land  owners  of  this  acquisition  for  whom  different Awards were passed.”

…..

“Contents of para (11) are not correct in the manner they have  been  stated.   The  possession  of  the  land  was  taken  on  18.01.2000 after announcement of the Award.  It is submitted  that  the Appellant had filed his claim in pursuance of notice  issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act and  had participated in the acquisition proceedings.  The Appellant  was even present when the Award was announced and yet he  did not take any steps to receive compensation.  He neither filed  any application nor presented his document to show his title on  the land.  These are the steps required to be taken by the land  owners to receive compensation.  The other owners of the land,  which was acquired under the same Notification, had filed the  appropriate application and submitted the documents showing  their  title  and  also  filed  surety  bond  before  receiving  compensation.   When  the  Appellant  himself  did  not  come  forward to receive the compensation, the authorities cannot be  faulted with for non-payment of compensation”.

3 The  Respondent,  on  the  other  hand,  has  sought  to  contend  that  the  

procedure for payment of compensation is that after the announcement of the  

Award,  the  land  owners  make  applications  before  the  Land  Acquisition  

Collector for payment of compensation by submitting documents showing their

Page 4

4

title to the land and by executing a surety bond. This procedure was followed by  

other land owners who then received the compensation due to them. Since the  

Appellants chose not to comply with this procedure, it cannot be said that the  

compensation was not paid to them.

4 This Court has, in a number of decisions including (1) Pune Municipal  

Corporation  vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki  (2014) 3 SCC 183, (2) Union  

of India vs. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 SCC 564, (3) Bimla Devi vs. State of Haryana  

(2014) 6 SCC 583, (4) Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India AIR  

2015 SC 3186, (5) Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (2015) 8 SCC  

544  and  (6)  Rajiv  Chaudhari  HUF vs.  Union  of  India (2015)  3  SCC 541,  

elucidated the manner in which Section 24(2) is to be interpreted.  In  Pune  

Municipal Corporation, a three Judge Bench of this Court (which should bind  

all lesser as well as coordinate Benches) clarified the meaning of the expression  

“compensation has not been paid”.  It discussed Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act,  

which enjoins the Collector, on making an Award under Section 11, to tender  

payment  of  compensation  to  persons  interested  entitled  thereto.   Section  31  

mandates  the  Collector  to  make  payment  of  compensation  to  such  persons  

unless prevented by one of the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2),  

namely (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

Page 5

5

due  to  any  of  these  contingencies  the  Collector  is  prevented  from  making  

payment of compensation to the persons entitled to compensation, the Collector  

is required to deposit the compensation in the Court to which reference under  

Section 18 may be made.  Thus compensation can be regarded as “paid” if the  

compensation has literally  been paid to  the person interested,  or  after  being  

offered to such person, it has been deposited in the Court.  The deposit of the  

Award in a Government Treasury would not amount to compensation being paid  

to the person interested.  In order to send the matter to rest,  since the same  

arguments are being regurgitated without end, the following paras from  Pune  

Municipal Corporation are extracted:

“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.

16. The mandatory nature of the provision in Section 31(2) with  regard to deposit  of  the compensation in the court  is  further  fortified by the provisions contained in Sections 32, 33 and 34.  As a matter of fact, Section 33 gives power to the court, on an  application  by a  person  interested  or  claiming an  interest  in

Page 7

7

Nazir Ahmad) that where a power is given to do a certain thing  in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.  Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.”

5 This Court in IVO Agnelo Santimano Fernandes vs. State of Goa (2011)  

11 SCC 506, relying upon the earlier decision in Prem Nath Kapur vs. National  

Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 71, had held that the deposit  

of the amount of the compensation in the State’s revenue account is of no avail  

and the liability of the State to pay interest subsists till the amount has not been  

deposited in Court.

6 In the current Appeals, compensation was neither paid to the Appellants  

nor  deposited  in  the  appropriate  Court.  The  retention  of  it  by  the  Land  

Acquisition Collector till such time as the Appellants made applications for it  

would not amount to compensation being paid to them. The contention of the  

Respondent  is  thus  entirely  erroneous.  Since  the  Award  predated  the  

commencement of the 2013 Act by well over five years and compensation has  

not paid to the Appellants, Section 24(2) comes into operation in favour of the  

Appellants.  Whether  possession  was  taken  by  the  Respondent  need  not  be  

dilated upon nor need it detain us any further. The acquisition is deemed to have  

lapsed in these circumstances.  The Respondent may initiate fresh acquisition  

proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act, if it so wishes.

Page 8

8

7 In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to consider the correctness of  

the impugned Judgment on merits.  These Appeals are allowed with no orders as  

to costs.

……………………….…J [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

…………………………..J [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi; December 08, 2015.