Aruna Singh v. Union of India & Ors

JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector, is taken on is record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.

¶2By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land W.P.(C) No. 772212014 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "2013 Act") which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "1894 Act") and in respect of which Award No. 15/1987-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land, comprised in Khasra Nos. 1762 (4-16), 1763 (4-16), 1767/2 (3-16) and 1768/2 •(3-1. measuring 17 bighas and 4 biswas in all, in village Chhauii New I.eIhi. shill he deemed to have lapsed.

¶3In this case'. it has been adtiiitted l.bY the concerned Land Acquisition Collector that ph ysical possession of the subject land has not beeiv taken. It is, however, contended that compensation '\b deposited in Court in CM (Main) No. 1411/2013 on 30. ! 2.201-3IuNuant i an urder i'.. v this Court in the said matter. Insofar as'thc qiie Ii idepsii in ( ' iii concerned, the same has already been considered by us in 6ya,,ender Siiwh v Union of India & • Ors: W.P.(C) 1393/2014 decided on 23 .09.2014 wherein this Court held that unless and until the compensation is tendered to the persons interested, mere depositing of the compensation in court would not be sufficient and cannot be regarded as having been paid. Therefore, following the decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), the deposit in Court cannot, in this case be, regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioner. W.P.(C)No. 7722/2014 Page 2of7

¶4The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the second proviso to Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, which has been introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Ordinance"). The newly added proviso reads as under:- "Provided further that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a court or in any designated account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded." (underlining added)

¶5On a plain reading of the proviso, it is evident that its purpose is to compute the period of five'-'years referred to in Seclion24(2) of the 2013 Act Certain periods are to be e\cluded in computing the said period referred to in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act The periods to be excluded are:-

(1) the period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court; or

(2) the period specified in the Award of a Tribunal for taking possession; or

(3) such period where possession has been taken but the compensation is lying deposited in a court or in any W.P.(C)No. 772212014 Page 3of7 designated account maintained for this purpose.

¶6The learned counsel for the respondents are relying on the third alternative inasmuch as it has been contended that the amount of compensation has been deposited in court. Consequently, it is urged that the entire period during which this amount was lying deposited in court ought to be excluded. But, that would be of no help to the respondents inasmuch as the amount was deposited in court on 30.12.2013 and t1ieAi of 2013 came into force on

01.01.2014, just one dj\ I icr. Thercfic. the on1 benefit, even if it is C assumed for the siI\e df argufnent that such benefit can he given to the respondents, would he of one day. The award was passed way back in 1987 and, therefore. the exclusion of one duv would not be of any use to the respondents.

¶7In any event .. , ihc uesiin )1 compensation I\ in deposited in court would only arise in a cise \\IILIC esin Li hcentaken. In the present case, admittedly, the possession has not been taken. This being the situation, 0 the newly inserted proviso has no application. We agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless and until possession is taken, the third alternative mentioned in the second proviso does not get triggered even though compensation may be lying deposited in a court or in any designated account maintained for such purposes. W.P.(C)No. 772212014 Page 4of7 Furthermore, the second proviso to Section 24(2) is similar to the proviso introduced by the 2014 Ordinance which has been held to be prospective by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in M/s Radiance Fincap

(F) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No.4283/2011 and Karnail Kaur & Ors. Vs. State Of Pun/ab & Ors. decided on 22.01.2015 in Civil Appeal uo.7424 of 2013. The rights vested in the petitioner as on 01.01.2-0 1 I b% hulL oI'tlic )1 Act hL\ e iiot been taken away by virtue of the intidution of the cond pro to Secin se 24(2) of the said Ordinance.

¶9That being the position, thequestion of payment of compensation will have to be construed in the light ol the \riou decisions rendered by the Supreme Court andThis Court in:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporal Misirimal Solanki and Ors: 183;

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:

(2014) 6 SCC564;

(iii) Sree Ba/a/i Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and

(iv) Surender Sin gh v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.20 14 by this Court. WP.(C) No. 7722/2014 Page 5of7 In Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), it has been held that unless and until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere deposit of the compensation amount in a court would not amount to payment of compensation. This aspect has also been considered in Gyanender Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others: WP (C) 139312014 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.09.2014. The same would be the position in respect of a deposit in "any designated account maintained for this purpose". Consequently, the mere dept ii the cmii-t. tlim. 1 •....'I ni offered or tendered to the persons enmIedwouId n ' 1 '.o..../acto a!! 'I: to payment of compensation. ...

¶10As such. in the present case, neither ph ysical possession of the subject land has been t iLn nor has any LOIUpLIN Uiuu bLLn paid to the Ixtitloner. The Award was mad morL thanfl c prior to lhL u i 1 I ng into force of the :r,•: 2013 Act. No period Iiib!e to 1.: cxchided IfltIflUC 1 i as the second proviso, which has been newly 1il.iI! I; . '. iriuc thc said Ordinance, is not applicable, as indicated above.

¶11As a result, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared. WP.(C)No. 772212014 Page 6of7

¶12The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 26, 2015 kb OP -- Li W.P.(C)No. 772212014 Page 7of7

$83 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 26.05.2015 + W.P.(C) 7722/2014 ARUNA SINGH Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Petitioner MiBharat Beriwal For the Respondent No. 1. 'Mr Bhagvan Swarup Shukia No For the Respondent L&B/LAC Mr Yééshu Jait with Ms Jyoti Tyagi For the Respondent DDA Mr Pavan Mathtir vithMr Himanshu Gupta CORAM - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADARDIJRREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDFVA