$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 20th December, 2017 + W.P. (C.) No.5443/2017 MAAN SINGH & ORS. Petitioners Through Mr. [ENTITY] and Mr. [ENTITY], Advocates versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Through Mr. [ENTITY], Standing Counsel with Ms. [ENTITY], Advocate for L&B/LAC. Mr. [ENTITY] and Ms. [ENTITY], Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] [ENTITY], J. (ORAL)
1. Counter affidavit has been handed over in Court by the LAC. The same is taken on record.
2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.
3. The present petition has been filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] by the petitioners. The petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra no.271/2 Min, i.e., total area (0-15) having 1/2th share, i.e. 375 sq.yds, situated in the revenue estate of village Ghonda Gujaran Khadar, Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject land) is deemed to have lapsed in view of [SECTION] of the [ACT].
4. Necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition are that a [SECTION] notification of the [ACT] referred to as the Act) was issued on 23.09.1989 for purposes of planned development of Delhi. A [SECTION] notification of the Act was issued on 20.06.1990 and an Award bearing no.8/92-93 was passed on 19.06.1992.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a symbolic possession was taken on 21.03.2007. However, the physical possession continues to remain with the petitioners. He further submits that till date no compensation was tendered. Photographs showing physical possession of the petitioners have been annexed to the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying on the decision rendered in the case of [PRECEDENT], submits that the petitioners are entitled to a declaration qua 1/2th share of the subject land that the acquisition proceedings with respect to land of the petitioners stand lapsed.
6. Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the LAC has drawn the attention of this Court on para 7 of the counter affidavit to submit that the actual physical possession of the subject land was taken over and handed over to the DDA. He submits that no one turned up to receive the compensation. No counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, reads as under:
"7. That the Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award bearing No. 8/1992-1993 dated 19.6.1992 and it is submitted that the physical possession of the lands bearing Khasra No. 271/2 min admeasuring 15 Biswas had been taken on 21.03.2007 and the same was handed over to DDA on the spot. The compensation was paid to Shri [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] (having share) on 24.10.2007 but the same could not be paid to Shri [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] (having share) of the aforesaid khasra no. as the other recorded owner had never claimed for the same. Hence, the compensation could not be paid to the recorded owner i.e. Shri [ENTITY]."
8. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph would show that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.(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]."
9. Having regard to the facts noted hereinabove and the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit, 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], Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided on
10.09.2014;
(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.
10. In view of the discussion above, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration qua 1/2th share of the subject land that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the [ACT] with regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of.
[CASE NUMBER])
12. The application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petition.
[ENTITY], J.
[ENTITY], J.
DECEMBER 20, 2017 rb