$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 18th December, 2017 + W.P.(C) 4973/2017 RANBIR SINGH Petitioner Through: Mr.[ENTITY], Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.[ENTITY] and Ms.[ENTITY], Advts. for L&B/LAC. Ms.[ENTITY] and Mr.[ENTITY], Advts. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO [ENTITY], J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.44/14 (4-16), 17 (4-14) and 24 (4-16) total area measuring 14 bighas 6 biswas, having 1/3rd share, i.e. 2 bigha 5 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Pooth Kalan, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject land) are deemed to have lapsed in view of the fact that neither possession of the land has been taken nor compensation has been paid.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that [SECTION] notification of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 11.12.1981. [SECTION] notification was issued on 11.04.1984. An Award was pronounced on 11.11.1985. It is the case of the petitioner that neither the possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid. Hence, the case of the petitioner would be fully covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that since the compensation has not been tendered nor possession of the land has been taken over, the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as "the New Act"). In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel has relied on para 5 & 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, which reads as under:
"5. That it is submitted that the lands of village Pooth Kalan were notified vide Notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] dated 11.12.1981 which was followed by Notification under [SECTION] of the said Act vide Notification dated 11.04.1984. In pursuance of said notification, notices under [SECTION] & [SECTION] as provided under the Act, were issued to the interested persons, inviting the claims from all the interested persons and claims were also filed by the interested persons.
6. That the Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award bearing No.20/85-86 dated 11.11.1985 and it is submitted that the physical possession of the lands bearing Khasra No.44 14 (4-16), 17 (4-14), 24 (4-16) admeasuring 14 Bighas and 06 Biswas could not be taken nor the compensation of the same could be paid."
5. The reading of the abovesaid paragraphs of the counter-affidavit clearly shows that possession of the land in question has not been taken nor compensation has been tendered to the petitioner. We note that the DDA in its counter affidavit has taken an objection that the land is in the name of Gaon Sabha.
6. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondent/LAC in their counter affidavits, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra). Paras 14 to 20 read as under:
"14. [SECTION] of the [ACT] enjoins upon the Collector, on making an award under [SECTION], 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] 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], 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] may be made.
15. Simply put, [SECTION] of the [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], 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].
16. The mandatory nature of the provision in [SECTION] with regard to deposit of the compensation in the court is further fortified by the provisions contained in [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION]. As a matter of fact, [SECTION] 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 such money shall have been deposited or as near thereto as may be.
17. While enacting [SECTION], Parliament definitely had in its view [SECTION] of the [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 sub-section ([SECTION]). If a literal construction were to be given, then it would amount to ignoring procedure, mode and manner of deposit provided in [SECTION] of the [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], 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] can be made on happening of any of the contingencies contemplated under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In other words, the compensation may be said to have been "paid" within the meaning of [SECTION] 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 [SECTION] and [SECTION].
[ACT] being an expropriatory legislation has to be strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner for payment of compensation are prescribed in [SECTION] of the [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 [ENTITY] in [ENTITY]]) 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.
19. 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 [ENTITY]], relying upon the earlier decision in [ENTITY]], has held that the deposit of the amount of the compensation in the states 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.
20. 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 [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] of the [ACT]."
7. We are of the considered view that the necessary ingredients for the application of [SECTION] of the New Act as has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:
(1) [PRECEDENT]; (2) [PRECEDENT];
(3) [PRECEDENT] decided on [SECTION].09.2014;
(4) [PRECEDENT] on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (5) [PRECEDENT]; W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
8. In view of the discussion above, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the [ACT] with regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared. On the objection of the DDA, that the land is in the name of Gaon Sabha, which is denied by the learned counsel for the LAC, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the title of the parties. The question is left open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of. No orders as to costs.
[ENTITY], J [ENTITY], J DECEMBER 18, 2017/rb