LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT VS PAWAN KUMAR CASE

LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT VS PAWAN KUMAR CASE / Judgment

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3646 OF 2022

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 26533 OF 2015)

DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY,

LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment and order dated

03.02.2015 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was

allowed in view of the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court in

Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors

1

.

2. The respondent purchased the land measuring 7 Bigha 1 Biswa

situated in village Sayoorpur, Tehsil- Mehrauli, New Delhi on

25.11.2011. The original land owner had filed a Writ Petition No. 2276

of 1985 challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the

Land Acquisition Act,18942

 dated 25.11.1980 and 20.05.1985

1 W.P.(C) No. 1393 of 2014

2 For short the Act

1

respectively. The Land Acquisition Collector had announced the award

on 14.05.1987. The said writ petition filed by the original land owner

was dismissed on 03.03.2005 in view of the order passed on the same

date in Chatro Devi v. Union of India & Ors.

3

. Subsequently, a

review application was filed by the original land owner inter alia on the

ground that the objections filed under Section 5A were not considered.

It was found by the High Court that the original land owner has not

given any date of filing of the objection, nor the details as to when and

before whom the objections were filed. The objections were not

attached with the writ petition either. Consequently, the review

application was dismissed on 27.04.2006. It was thereafter, the

purchaser has purchased the property on 25.11.2011.

3. The Division Bench in Gyanender Singh noticed the payment

deposited by the appellant and held as under:

“It is absolutely clear from the above extracts that unless and

until the compensation is tendered to the persons interested,

mere depositing of the compensation in the court would not be

sufficient. To be clear, compensation cannot be regarded as

having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in court

unless and until it has first been offered to the person interested

and he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is

an admitted position that the compensation amount was

tendered in this Court without first being offered to the persons

interested (petitioners). Therefore, in view of the clear dictum of

the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), such

deposit of compensation in court cannot be regarded as a

payment of compensation as contemplated under the provisions

of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.”

4. The High Court declared the acquisition proceedings as lapsed in view

3 2005 SCC Online Delhi 279

2

of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

20134

.

5. Such provision has been interpreted in Indore Development

Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.

5

 wherein it has been held that twin

conditions of non-payment of compensation and/or not taking

possession would lead to the deemed lapse of proceedings. Therefore,

if any of the twin conditions is not satisfied, the proceedings cannot be

declared to be lapsed.

6. The stand of the appellant was that even after the dismissal of the writ

petition filed by the original land owner, interim orders in respect of the

same acquisition in other writ petitions were in operation, therefore,

the appellant could not have taken possession of the land.

7. It was also pointed out that the compensation was deposited by filing

an application before the High Court on 30.12.2013 since the deposit

had not been accepted by the Additional District Judge, South on

account of the Court being closed for winter vacations. Thus, an

application under Article 227 of the Constitution- CM(M) No. 1407 of

2013 was filed before the High Court. The appellant had thus deposited

cheques before the High Court for the amounts payable to original land

owner namely Balkishan S/o Ram Ratan Kapayi such as a sum of

Rs.14,61,188.25 in respect of land measuring 53 Bigha and 9 Biswa,

4 For short, the ‘2013 Act’

5 (2020) 8 SCC 129

3

Rs. 4,21,878.93 for land measuring 13 Bigha and 6 Biswa and

Rs.47,798.97 for land measuring 1 Bigha and 12 Biswa. The High Court

had passed an order that the same shall be treated as tendered to the

Court of Additional District Judge on 30.12.2013. The High Court

passed the following order on 30.12.2013:-

“2. As vaguely pleaded in para 10 and as orally explained, the

urgency to file these petitions is that if compensation assessed is

not paid or deposited the proceedings under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse.

3. It is pleaded in paragraph 4 that the concerned Court is

presently closed during winter vacations and shall reopen on

January 02, 2014.

4. Enclosed with the petitions as Annexure-2 are cheques drawn

in the name of ‘ADJ, Delhi’.

5. A meaningful reading of the petition would reveal that the

intentment is to tender the amounts on or before December 31,

2013.

6. The petitions stand disposed of recording that without

prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders the

cheques tendered in each petition (being Annexure P-2) would

be treated as a tender to the Court of the learned Additional

District Judge Delhi as of today i.e. December 30, 2013.

7. The Registry is directed to remove the cheques annexed as

Annexure 2 and keep them in safe custody till reopening of the

Court. On the reopening the cheques shall be sent to the Court

of the concerned Additional District Judge Delhi...................”

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the order

of the High Court cannot be sustained in law for two reasons. Firstly,

the respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice under

4

Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and in fact after the award of the Land

Acquisition Collector. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in a separate

judgment delivered today in the matter of Delhi Development

Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd.

6

, subsequent purchaser is not

entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act.

9. Secondly, the finding that compensation was not offered to the land

owners and therefore the deposit in the Court cannot be regarded as

payment of compensation is again not tenable in view of the judgment

in Manohar Lal wherein this Court held as under:

“202. Section 24(2) deals with the expression where

compensation has not been paid. It would mean that it has not

been tendered for payment under Section 31(1).

xxx xxx xxx

205. The word “paid” in Section 31(1) to the landowner cannot

include in its ambit the expression “deposited” in court. Deposit

cannot be said to be payment made to landowners. Deposit is on

being prevented from payment. However, in case there is a

tender of the amount that is to mean amount is made available

to the landowner that would be a discharge of the obligation to

make the payment and in that event such a person cannot be

penalised for the default in making the payment. In default to

deposit in court, the liability is to make the payment of interest

under Section 34 of the 1894 Act.

xxx xxx xxx

207. In our considered opinion, there is a breach of obligation to

deposit even if it is taken that amount to be deposited in the

Reference Court in exigencies being prevented from payment as

provided in Section 31(2). The default will not have the effect of

reopening the concluded proceedings. The legal position and

6 Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022

5

consequence which prevailed from 1893 till 2013 on failure to

deposit was only the liability for interest and all those

transactions were never sought to be invalidated by the

provisions contained in Section 24. It is only in the case where in

a pending proceeding for a period of five years or more, the

steps have not been taken for taking possession and for

payment of compensation, then there is a lapse under Section

24(2). In case amount has not been deposited with respect to

majority of landholdings, higher compensation has to follow.

Both lapse and higher compensation are qualified with the

condition of period of 5 years or more.

208. It was submitted that mere tender of amount is not

payment. The amount has to be actually paid. In our opinion,

when amount has been tendered, the obligation has been

fulfilled by the Collector. Landowners cannot be forced to receive

it. In case a person has not accepted the amount wants to take

the advantage of non-payment, though the amount has

remained (sic unpaid) due to his own act. It is not open to him to

contend that the amount has not been paid to him, as such,

there should be lapse of the proceedings. Even in a case when

offer for payment has been made but not deposited, liability to

pay amount along with interest subsist and if not deposited for

majority of holding, for that adequate provisions have been

given in the proviso also to Section 24(2). The scheme of the

2013 Act in Sections 77 and 80 is also the same as that provided

in Sections 31 and 34 of the 1894 Act.

xxx xxx xxx

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in

court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso

to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to

majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on

the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the

1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with

the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under

Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been

fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted.

Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the

lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with

respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more,

compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the

6

“landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition

under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.”

10. In view of above, and for the reasons recorded in a separate judgment

delivered today in Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., the order passed by the

High Court is not sustainable and therefore, the same is set aside. The

writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed.

11. The appeal is allowed.

.............................................J.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

.............................................J.

(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 06, 2022.

7