DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS.versusPAWAN KUMAR & ORS.

                       [2022] 3 S.C.R. 791                            791


        DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY,                          A
        LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS.
                                v.
                    PAWAN KUMAR & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022)                     B
                          MAY 06, 2022
  [HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4 and 6 – Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
                                                                      C
and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition
proceedings – Claim of – Respondent purchased property after
the publication of notice u/ss.4 and 6 of the 1894 Act – Appellants
had deposited compensation (amount payable to original owners)
by filing application in the High Court since the deposit was not
accepted by the Additional District Judge, on account of the Court    D
closed for winter vacations – The High Court passed order
recording that the same shall be treated as tendered to the Court
of Additional District Judge on 30.12.2013 – Respondent filed
writ petition before the High Court and claimed lapse of the
proceedings under 2013 Act – The High Court declared the
                                                                      E
acquisition proceedings as lapsed in view of the provisions of s.
24(2) of the 2013 Act – Held: The respondent is a purchaser
after the publication of notice u/ss. 4 and 6 of the Act and in
fact after the award of the Land Acquisiti on Collector –
Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the matter of Delhi
Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., subsequent        F
purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings
under the 2013 Act – Further, 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 Indore Development
                                                                      G
Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors. – Therefore, the order passed
by the High Court is not sustainable and same is set aside –
Appeal allowed.
      Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors
      (2020) 8 SCC 129; Delhi Development Authority v.
                                                                      H
                               791
792             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A            Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 3073 of
             2022 decided by the Supreme Court) – relied on.
             Chatro Devi v. Union of India & Ors. 2005 SCC Online
             Delhi 279 – referred to.
             Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
B            W.P.(C) No. 1393 of 2014 decided by the Delhi High
             Court – referred to.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3646
      of 2022.

C           From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2015 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 5318 of 2014.
             Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
           Rajender Pd. Saxena, N. P. Sahni, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B.
      Saharya, Akshat Agarwal for M/s Saharya & Co., Advs. for the
D     Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             HEMANT GUPTA, J.
            1. The challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment and order
E     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 & Ors1.
             2. The respondent purchased the land measuring 7 Bigha 1 Biswa
      situated in village Sayoorpur, Tehsil- Mehrauli, New Delhi on 25.11.2011.
F     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 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
G     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
      1
        W.P.(C) No. 1393 of 2014
      2
        For short the Act
      3
H       2005 SCC Online Delhi 279
      DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING                     793
        DEPARTMENT v. PAWAN KUMAR [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


Court that the original land owner has not given any date of filing of the       A
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               B
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            C
          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         D
          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           E
in view 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               F
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       G
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.
4
    For short, the ‘2013 Act’
5
    (2020) 8 SCC 129                                                             H
794            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A             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
B
      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, 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
C     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
D           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.
E           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.
F
            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.
G
            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
H
     DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING                        795
       DEPARTMENT v. PAWAN KUMAR [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


order of the High Court cannot be sustained in law for two reasons.                A
Firstly, the respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice under
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
                                                                                   B
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:
                                                                                   C
          “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            D
          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        E
          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                        F
          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
                                                                                   G
          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
6
    Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022                                                  H
796      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     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.
B
      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-
C
      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
D     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
E
      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
F     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
G
      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 “landowners” as on the date of
      notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.”

H
   DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING                     797
     DEPARTMENT v. PAWAN KUMAR [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


       10. In view of above, and for the reasons recorded in a separate       A
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.
                                                                              B
Ankit Gyan                                                  Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)




                                                                              C




                                                                              D




                                                                              E




                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H