Allowed

M/S Parmatma India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC5 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/1002/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as compensation was neither paid nor deposited in court despite possession taken. The court declared the proceedings lapsed and ordered compensation under the 2013 Act within one year.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that acquisition proceedings lapsed and petitioner entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act to be paid within one year.

M/S Parmatma India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Judgment: 05^th February, 2018

¶4

- W.P.(C) 1002/2016

¶5

M/S PARMATMA INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.Aman Mehrotra, Advts.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advts. for LAC/L&B.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

¶10

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Counter affidavit has been handed over in Court by the counsel for the LAC. Let the counter affidavit be taken on record.

¶12

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

¶13

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra nos.23/11 min, 12 min, 1 bigha 18 biswas, situated in village Singhu, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the subject land‟) is deemed to have 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 the „2013 Act‟), as compensation has not been tendered although the possession has been taken.

¶14

W.P. (C) No.1002/2016

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

Brief facts to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued on 14.10.2005. A Section 6 declaration was made on 09.01.2006 and an Award bearing no.2/2006-7/DC (NW) was rendered on 20.07.2006.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner, the case of the petitioner would be fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that he has instructions to pray only for compensation under 2013 Act having regard to the fact that the possession has already been taken.

¶18

Mr.Jain has drawn the attention of the Court to para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC and submits that the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner.

¶19

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:

¶20

“That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner are claiming the relief of the land measuring (1-18) falling in khasra number 23//11 min (0-11) and 23//12 min (107), Village Singhu, Delhi which the petitioners admit in para 6 that the possession was taken by the Government as purpose of acquisition was for construction of Guru Tegh Bahadur Memorial at Singhu Border. The compensation however appears to have not been paid.”

¶21

In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. ( supra ) in paras 14 to 20 it has been held as under:

¶22

W.P. (C) No.1002/2016

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

“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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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 such money, to pass an order to invest the amount so deposited in such government or other approved securities and may direct the interest or other proceeds of any such investment to be accumulated and paid in such manner as it may consider proper so that the parties interested therein may have the benefit therefrom as they might have had from the land in respect whereof

¶27

W.P. (C) No.1002/2016

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

such money shall have been deposited or as near thereto as may be.

¶30

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 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, therefore, that for the purposes of Section 24(2), the compensation shall be regarded as “paid” if the compensation has been offered to the person interested and such compensation has been deposited in the court where reference under Section 18 can be made on happening of any of the contingencies contemplated under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. In other words, the compensation may be said to have been “paid” within the meaning of Section 24(2) when the Collector (or for that matter Land Acquisition Officer) has discharged his obligation and deposited the amount of compensation in court and made that amount available to the interested person to be dealt with as provided in Sections 32 and 33.

¶31

1894 Act being an expropriatory legislation has to be strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner for payment of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections 31-34) of the 1894 Act. The Collector, with regard to the payment of compensation, can only act in the manner so provided. It is settled proposition of law (classic statement of Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad[1]) that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must

¶32

W.P. (C) No.1002/2016

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.

¶35

Now, this is admitted position that award was made on 31.01.2008. Notices were issued to the landowners to receive the compensation and since they did not receive the compensation, the amount (Rs.27 crores) was deposited in the government treasury. Can it be said that deposit of the amount of compensation in the government treasury is equivalent to the amount of compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested? We do not think so. In a comparatively recent decision, this Court in Agnelo Santimano Fernandes[2], relying upon the earlier decision in Prem Nath Kapur[3], has 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.

¶36

From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining to the subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court. The deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.”

¶37

Taking into consideration the stand taken by the respondent in their counter affidavit, the fact that compensation has not been tendered and the award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of 2013 Act, we are of the considered view that the necessary ingredients of section 24(2) of 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India stands satisfied. The petitioner would be

¶38

W.P. (C) No.1002/2016

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land stand lapsed, it is so declared. The petitioner would only be entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, which would be paid within a period of one year from today.

¶41

The petition stand disposed of.

¶42

G.S.SISTANI, J.

¶43

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

¶44

FEBRUARY 05, 2018 rb/

¶45

W.P. (C) No.1002/2016

¶46

Page 6 of 6

M/S Parmatma India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Parmatma India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inder Pal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Taurant Projects Ltd. Vs M/S Engineers India Ltd. and Anr.

Businees System India Ltd. Vs Shiv Kumar Singh & Anr.

Nk Jagbir Singh (Retd) & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Woodhill Infrastructure Ltd. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Jitendra Misra and Anr. Vs Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Ranbir Kaur & Ors. Vs Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Managing Committee & Ors.

Resident Welfare Association Vs Commissioner Edmc & Ors.

Inder Pal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Reliance Communiciations Ltd. Vs Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Abdul Rashid Butt Vs National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Satish Kumar and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rohini Ews Flats Residents Welfare Association and Ors. Vs North Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.