Case: Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sukhbir Singh

A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 24th October, 1961, stating that the public purpose for acquisition was the planned development of Delhi. This Notification covered large tracts of land in and around Delhi. In this case, we are concerned with 33 bighas and 1 biswa of land in the Vasant Kunj area of New Delhi. This Section 4 Notification was followed by a Notification under Section 6 dated 4th January, 1969, which in turn, was followed by notices issued under Section 9 on 26th April, 1983. An award relating to the aforesaid land was then made by the Land Acquisition Collector, New Delhi, only on 12th December, 1997. Possession of the said land, being an open piece of land, was taken by a Panchnama dated 27th January, 2000. An affidavit that has been filed by the Commissioner, Land Management, Delhi Development Authority in this Court, pursuant to an order of this Court dated 17th April, 2015, discloses that the requisite compensation for taking over the said land was deposited by the DDA with the Land Acquisition Collector only in the year 2002. The said affidavit goes on to state that since the land had been sold to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the present case, there was a dispute as to who would receive compensation and that, therefore, compensation could neither be paid nor tendered4. On the eve of the coming into force of the 2013 Act (on 1st January, 2014), an application styled as a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was made by the Land Acquisition Collector in the High Court of Delhi on 27th December, 2013, requesting the High Court of Delhi to accept cheques towards compensation amounts under the award dated 12th December, 1997, stating that non-deposit of compensation on or before 31st December, 2013 would adversely affect the acquisition proceedings inasmuch as the proceedings might lapse in view of the fact that the 2013 Act has been notified to take effect from 1st January, 2014. An order dated 30th December, 2013 was passed by the High Court on this application stating that the petition stands disposed of, recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land owners, the cheques tendered in each petition would be treated as a tender to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as on today i.e. 30th December, 20135. The original land holders thereafter presented a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 4375 of 2014 before the High Court of Delhi, on 26th May, 2014, stating that as possession had not been taken and as compensation had neither been tendered nor paid to the petitioner, the requisite conditions of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would be met, and that, as a result, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. No affidavit in reply was filed to the aforesaid writ petition. By the impugned judgment dated 18th November, 2014, the High Court of Delhi allowed the said petition based on the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation, and other judgments following the same, stating:5. Without going into the controversy with regard to physical possession, this much is clear that the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this court in the following decisions, stand satisfied:(i) Pune Municipal Coporation and Anr. v. H.M. Solanki, 2014 (2) SCC 183,(ii) Union of India & Ors. V. Shiv Raj & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 564  (iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: W.P.(C) No. 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1393/2014, 10.09.20146. As a result, the petitioners are 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

Reasoning:
20. On facts, it is clear that neither tender, that is offer to the original claimant nor payment has been made in the manner provided by Section 31 read with Standing Order No. 28 of 1909. In the present case, as has been admitted in the affidavit filed in this Court, the DDA was not ready with compensation payable on the day the award was pronounced, but only handed over such compensation to the Land Acquisition Collector five years after the award was pronounced, that is, in 2002. The Land Acquisition Collector, in its turn, did nothing whatsoever to offer the said sum or pay it to the original owners. On the contrary, by moving an application on the eve of the coming into force of the 2013 Act, and by depositing the said amount of compensation paid to it in the year 2002 only on 30th December, 2013, it is clear that the aforesaid mandatory provision and procedure were not followed by the authorities. The present original land owners lands were notified for acquisition on 24th October, 1961, of which possession was taken four decades later, in 2000; after which the land owners have yet to see the colour of the paltry amount of compensation offered which has neither been tendered nor paid to them. In the facts disclosed by this case, there could not be stronger facts to hold such acquisition non est in accordance with the object sought to be achieved by Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. This piece of land admittedly being open land is governed by the ratio of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 792     in which it has been held:In Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal [(2011) 5 SCC 394   : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 747] , the Court referred to the judgments in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat [(1976) 1 SCC 700]   , Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab [(1996) 4 SCC 212]   , P.K. Kalburqi v. State of Karnataka [(2005) 12 SCC 489] , NTPC Ltd. v. Mahesh Dutta [(2009) 8 SCC 339   : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 375] , Sita Ram Bhandar Society v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 10 SCC 501   : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 268] and culled out the following propositions: (Banda Development Authority case [(2011) 5 SCC 394   : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 747] , SCC p. 411, para 37)(i) No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land(ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the State authority concerned to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession(iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the authority concerned will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority concerned will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken(iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such document(v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3-A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken. [para 27]29. As the present case will fall within sub-paragraph (ii), physical possession of the land can be said to have been taken on the facts of the present case30. Having regard to the law declared in the Pune Municipal Corporation case, as followed by the other judgments of this Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court is correct and that the impugned judgment calls for no interference.