Full Judgment Text
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
Signature Not Verified
19.9.1986 in respect of 1 bigha 4 biswas of land in Khasra No.
Digitally signed by
SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR
Date: 2016.09.10
11:20:22 IST
Reason:
89/23/2 in village Palam, New Delhi has lapsed. At paragraph 2 of
the judgment, the admitted position of non payment of compensation
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
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
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
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.
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
7
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8467/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/11/2014
in WPC No. 4232/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KUSHAM JAIN AND ANR. Respondent(s)
(with office report)
Date : 31/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Amerendra Sharan, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv.
Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv.
For M/s. Saharya & Co., Adv.
Ms. Binu Tamta,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG
Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr.Adv.
Ms. Alka Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Prakash, Adv.
Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sudhakar Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Soumya Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Karan Seth, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv.
Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy,Adv.
Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.
8
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[RENU DIWAN] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR]
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR A.R.-CUM-P.S.
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)