Delhi High Court
M/S Gcg Transglobal Housing Project Pvt … vs Union Of India And Ors on 3 March, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Sachin Datta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.03.2025
+ W.P.(C) 250/2018, CM No.1059/2018, 36153/2018 &
21810/2019
M/S GCG TRANSGLOBAL HOUSING
PROJECT PVT LTD .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar & Ms. Aparajita Jha,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan & Ms. Supriya
Malik, Advocates for LAC.
Ms. Aakanksha Kaul & Ms. Rhea
Borkotoky, Advocates for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner – a company registered under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956 – has filed the above captioned petition
claiming ownership of the land admeasuring 15 acres situated in the
revenue estate of Village Bamnauli, Near Bijwasan, in the National
Capital Territory of Delhi, New Delhi bearing khasra Nos. (Old/New,
with land measurements) as 350 (28/1) 4-16, 351 (28/10) 4-16, 352
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 1 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
(28/09) 4-16, 353 (28/02) 4-16, 331 (29/25) 2-19, 347 (29/15) 4-16,
346 (29/16) 2-00, 346 (26/16) 2-16, 348 (29/06) 4-16, 322 (29/7) 4-16,
323 (29/14) 4-16, 330 (29/17) 0-07, 330 (29/17) 5-17, 321 (29/8) 1-00,
324 (29/13) 1-00, 329 (29/18) 1-00, 354 (28/3) 4-16, 355 & 356 (28/8)
4-16, 358 (28/7) 4-13 and 359/1 (28/4) 3-06 (hereafter the subject
land).
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying
that the acquisition of the subject land be declared as lapsed by virtue
of the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013, (hereafter the 2013 Act).
F ACTUAL C ONTEXT
3. The petitioner claims that it had purchased the subject land by
virtue of four sale deeds dated 12.10.1999, 18.10.1999, 12.11.1999
and 25.11.1999, which were executed pursuant to four different
agreements to sell (ATS) dated 05.07.1999, 04.07.1999, 27.07.1999
and 05.08.1999 respectively.
4. There were certain disputes that arose in respect of the subject
land. One Mr Shridev Sharma had instituted a civil suit, being CS
(OS) No.338/2000, for permanent injunction against the petitioner and
also obtained interim orders. Mr Shridev Sharma (plaintiff in CS (OS)
No.338/2000) claimed that he was in joint possession of the subject
land as a licensee of the petitioner. He claimed that he had advanced a
loan of ₹1,69,95,000/-. It is stated that while CS(OS) No.338/2000
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 2 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
was pending, another suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants, which included the petitioner, from forcibly
dispossessing the plaintiff from the subject land till the repayment of
amount of ₹1,69,70,000/- together with interest at the rate of twenty-
four per cent per annum, was filed. Thereafter, the said plaintiff filed
another suit being CS(OS) No.1077/2000 seeking recovery of
₹2,04,76,219/- along with interest at the rate of twenty-four per cent
per annum and in default, foreclosure, and possession of the subject
land.
5. The initial suit CS(OS) No.338/2000 was withdrawn since the
cause of action was fully covered in the second suit being CS (OS)
No.1077/2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit for
redemption, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction being CS
(OS) 93/2012, which was renumbered as CS (COMM) No. 203/2017.
In the said proceedings, the petitioner deposited the amount as claimed
by the defendants, which was also the subject matter of the claim
involved in CS (OS) No.1077/2000. The court issued directions to
maintain status quo as to the title of the subject land subject to the said
deposit.
6. The said dispute was finally settled between the parties and this
court passed an order dated 08.12.2017 disposing of the CS (COMM)
No.203/2017 in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
Accordingly, the title documents were made over to the petitioner on
payment of the redemption amount. The petitioner claims that in view
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 3 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
of the dispute and the interim orders passed by the court, the subject
land was not mutated in favour of the petitioner.
7. On 04.11.2004, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter the LA Act) whereby certain
land including the subject land were proposed to be acquired for the
Planned Development of Delhi. The notification under Section 4 of
the LA Act was followed by a notification dated 31.10.2005 under
Section 6 of the LA Act. Thereafter, the award being Award
No.1/2007-08 (hereafter the Award) in respect of certain land in
Village Bamnoli including the subject land was pronounced under
Section 11 of the LA Act.
8. The petitioner claims that it is in possession of the subject land,
thus, neither the possession of the subject land was taken over by the
Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) nor the compensation has been paid
to it. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that the acquisition of the
subject land has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
R IVAL CONTENTIONS
9. Respondents nos. 4 and 5 [LAC and the Delhi Development
Authority (DDA)] have filed their counter affidavits to contest the
present petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 4 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
10. Mr Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the LAC contested
the petition on two grounds. First, he submitted that the present
petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not the recorded owner
of the subject land. He submitted that the revenue records, reflects
M/s Sailesh Charitable Trust, through BL Sailesh, SL Ratnakar, and
Ashok Kumar as the owners of the subject land. He referred to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar & Another v. Union of
India & Others1 and on the strength of the said decision contended
that since the petitioner is not the recorded owner, it is not entitled to
challenge the acquisition of the subject land.
11. Next, he submitted that the possession of the subject land was
taken over and the compensation for the subject land was deposited.
He contended that the notices were issued under Section 12(2) of the
LA Act to the recorded owners, but none had come forward to collect
the compensation. He submits that in the given facts, the acquisition
of the subject land had not lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act as neither of the twin conditions (possession not taken over
and the compensation not paid) are satisfied.
12. Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
stoutly contested the aforesaid contentions. He submitted that in the
present case neither the possession of the subject land was taken over
nor the compensation was paid for the same. He also referred to the
pleadings to state that the petitioner’s claim that the possession of the
1 (2019) 10 SCC 229
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 5 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
subject land has not been taken over and compensation has not been
paid, has not been effectively traversed.
R EASONS A ND C ONCLUSIONS
The questions involved
13. The principal controversy involved in the present petition is
limited to ascertaining whether the acquisition of the subject land has
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
14. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act, which is set out below: –
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of
1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain
cases.
(1) *** ***
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award
under the said section 11 has been made five years or
more prior to the commencement of this Act but the
physical possession of the land has not been taken or
the compensation has not been paid the said
proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate
the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in
accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made
and compensation in respect of a majority of land
holdings has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the
notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said
Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 6 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
15. In Indore Development Authority (LAPSE -5J) v. Manohar
Lal and Ors.2 the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that Section
24(2) of 2013 Act would be applicable only when both the conditions
– that is, neither the compensation has been paid nor the possession of
the land has been taken over – are satisfied. The conclusions as set out
in the aforesaid decision are reproduced below:
“366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined
under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period
covered by an interim order of the court, then
proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has
not been repealed.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as “nor”
or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five years
or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the
possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation
has been paid, possession has not been taken then there
is no lapse.
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)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 7 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
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 “landowners” as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or
non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation
to pay is complete by tendering the amount under
Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to
accept compensation or who sought reference for
higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is
to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of
Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894
Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by
drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award
has been passed on taking possession under Section 16
of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no
divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act, as once possession has been taken there is no
lapse under Section 24(2).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 8 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or
more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a
proceeding for land acquisition pending with the
authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of
subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be
excluded in the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to
question the legality of mode of taking possession to
reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of court to
invalidate acquisition.”
16. Whilst the petitioner contends that neither the possession of the
subject land has been taken over nor the compensation has been paid,
respondents no. 4 and 5 (LAC and DDA) dispute the same. The
respondents also question the locus of the petitioner to challenge the
acquisition of the subject land.
17. In view of the above, the following questions require to be
addressed:
(1) Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the
acquisition of the subject land and maintain the present petition?
(2) Whether the LAC had taken over possession of the subject
land?
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 9 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
(3) Whether the LAC had paid the compensation for acquisition of
the subject land?
Locus Standi of the petitioner
18. The first and foremost question to be addressed is whether the
present petition is maintainable. It was contended on behalf of the
LAC and DDA that the present petition is not maintainable as the
petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and not the recorded owner of the
subject land.
19. The learned counsel for LAC and DDA advanced this
contention on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Shiv Kumar & Another v. Union of India & Others3. They pointed
out that in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharam Trust & Anr.4
the Supreme Court had considered the question whether subsequent
purchaser / power of attorney holder had any locus standi to file a
petition seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act had lapsed. After referring to certain
decisions, the Supreme Court concluded as under:-
“28. Thus, the subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the
successor in interest, the power of attorney holder, etc.,
are all persons who are interested in
compensation/land owners/affected persons in terms of
the 2013 Act and such persons are entitled to file a
case for a declaration that the land acquisition
proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is a declaration qua3 (supra)
4 2017 (6) SCC 751Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 10 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
the land wherein indisputably they have an interest and
they are affected by such acquisition. For such a
declaration, it cannot be said that the respondents/writ
petitioners do not have any locus standi.”
20. The said decision was overruled in a subsequent decision in
Shiv Kumar & Another v. Union of India & Others (supra). The
Supreme Court found that its earlier decision in Govt. of NCT of
Delhi v. Manav Dharam Trust & Anr (supra) was per curium and did
not lay down the law correctly.
21. It is important to note that the question considered by the
Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar and Another v. Union of India &
Others (supra) was whether a subsequent purchaser, purchasing a
property after issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA
Act can invoke the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This
is noted in first paragraph of the said decision. The same is reproduced
as under: –
“1. The question involved in the matter is whether a
purchaser of the property after issuance of notification
under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, “the 1894 Act”), can invoke the provisions
contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short,
“the Act of 2013″).”
22. The Supreme Court noted its earlier decisions including the
decisions in the case of UP Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P)
Limited5; Sneh Prabha v. State of UP6; Meera Sahni v. State (NCT
5
(1996) 3 SCC 124
6
(1996) 7 SCC426
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 11 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
of Delhi)7; and V. Chandrasekaran v Administrative Officer8,
whereby it was held that a person purchasing the land after the
notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was published, did not
acquire any right, title or interest in the land.
23. In UP Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Limited (supra) the
Supreme Court held that the sale of land after the notification under
Section 4 of the LA Act was published, is void against the State. This
view also resonates in Sneh Prabha v. State of UP (supra) and
Chandrasekaran v Administrative Officer (supra).
24. In Meera Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) the Supreme
Court held that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the
acquisition proceedings, but would be entitled to the compensation for
the acquired land. A similar view was also expressed by the Supreme
Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment
Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Coop Housing Society9: (2013) 5
SCC 427.
25. In Shiv Kumar and Another v. Union of India & Others
(supra), the Supreme Court referred to the aforesaid decisions and
held as under: –
“19. The Act of 2013 presupposes that a person is
required to be rehabilitated and resettled. Such a person
who has purchased after section 4 notification as sale
deed is void under the Act of 1894, cannot claim
rehabilitation and resettlement as per policy envisaged7
(2008)9 SCC 177
8
(2012) 12 SCC 133
9
(2013) 5 SCC 427Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 12 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
under the Act of 2013, as his land has not been
acquired, but he has purchased a property which has
already been acquired by the State Government, he
cannot claim even higher compensation, as per proviso
to section 24(2) under the Act of 2013. An original
landowner cannot be deprived of higher value under the
Act of 2013, which higher compensation was not so
contemplated when the void transaction of sale had
been entered, and right is conferred under proviso to
Section 24(2) on recorded owners under Act of 1894.
We have come across instances in which after
notifications under section 4 were issued and, the
property was purchased at throwaway prices by the
builders and unscrupulous persons, such purchases are
void and confer no right even to claim higher
compensation under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 as
it is to be given to the owner as mentioned in the
notification.
20. Given that, the transaction of sale, effected after
section 4 notification, is void, is ineffective to transfer
the land, such incumbents cannot invoke the provisions
of section 24. As the sale transaction did not clothe
them with the title when the purchase was made; they
cannot claim ‘possession’ and challenge the acquisition
as having lapsed under section 24 by questioning the
legality or regularity of proceedings of taking over of
possession under the Act of 1894. It would be unfair
and profoundly unjust and against the policy of the law
to permit such a person to claim resettlement or claim
the land back as envisaged under the Act of 2013.
When he has not been deprived of his livelihood but is
a purchaser under a void transaction, the outcome of
exploitative tactics played upon poor farmers who were
unable to defend themselves.
21. Thus, under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act
of 2013, challenge to acquisition proceeding of the
taking over of possession under the Act of 1894 cannot
be made, based on a void transaction nor declaration
can be sought under section 24(2) by such incumbents
to obtain the land. The declaration that acquisition has
lapsed under the Act of 2013 is to get the property back
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 13 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
whereas, the transaction once void, is always a void
transaction, as no title can be acquired in the land as
such no such declaration can be sought. It would not be
legal, just and equitable to give the land back to
purchaser as land was not capable of being sold which
was in process of acquisition under the Act of 1894.
The Act of 2013 does not confer any right on purchaser
whose sale is ab initio void. Such void transactions are
not validated under the Act of 2013. No rights are
conferred by the provisions contained in the 2013 Act
on such a purchaser as against the State.
22. ‘Void is, ab initio,’ a nullity, is inoperative, and a
person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title
has been conferred upon him to claim that the land
should be given back to him. A person cannot enforce
and ripe fruits based on a void transaction to start
claiming title and possession of the land by seeking a
declaration under Section 24 of the Act of 2013; it will
amount to conferment of benefit never contemplated by
the law. The question is, who can claim declaration/
rights under section 24(2) for the restoration of land or
lapse of acquisition. It cannot be by a person with no
title in the land. The provision of the Act of 2013
cannot be said to be enabling or authorizing a purchaser
after Section 4 to question proceeding taken under the
Act of 1894 of taking possession as held in U.P. Jal
Nigam (supra) which is followed in M. Venkatesh
(supra) and other decisions and consequently claim
declaration under Section 24 of the Act of 2013. What
cannot be done directly cannot be permitted in an
indirect method.
23. The provisions of the Act of 2013 aimed at the
acquisition of land with least disturbance to the
landowners and other affected families and to provide
just and fair compensation to affected families whose
land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or
are affected and to make adequate provisions for such
affected persons for their rehabilitation and
resettlement. The provisions of Act of 2013 aim at
ousting all inter-meddlers from the fray by ensuring
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 14 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
payment in the bank account of landholders under
section 77 of the Act.
24. The intendment of Act of 2013 is to benefit farmers
etc. Subsequent purchasers cannot be said to be
landowners entitled to restoration of land and cannot be
termed to be affected persons within the provisions of
Act of 2013. It is not open to them to claim that the
proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2).”
26. It is clear from the above that a person purchasing land after the
notification under Section 4 of the LA Act is published, has no locus
to challenge the acquisition proceedings for the reason that any such
sale or transaction is void against the State and is not binding.
27. The aforementioned decisions have no application in the facts
of the present case. In the present case, the petitioner had acquired the
title of the subject land by virtue of the four sale deeds executed on
dated 12.10.1999, 18.10.1999, 11.11.1999 and 25.11.1999. Thus, the
petitioner is not a person who has purchased the subject land
subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, which
was published on 04.11.2004. The fact that the subject land was not
mutated in the name of the petitioner in the land records, does not
mean that the petitioner had not acquired title or interest in the subject
land prior to 04.11.2004. It is settled law that the mutation does not
confer title. The petitioner derives its title from the registered sale
deeds conveying the subject land in its favor.
28. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that the petitioner
lacks the locus standi to seek declaration that the acquisition of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 15 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
subject land has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The
said contention is thus rejected.
Possession of Land
29. The second question to be addressed is whether the LAC had
taken over possession of the subject land.
30. In Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Aggarwal10 the
Supreme Court referred to a number of decisions and summarized the
principles as to the manner in which the possession of the acquired
land could be stated to have been taken, as under: –
“37. The principles which can be culled out from
the above noted judgments are:
(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 in10 (2011) 5 SCC 394
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 16 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
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.”
31. In Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v.
Manoharlal,(supra), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
concurred with the aforesaid view. The Supreme Court further
observed as under: –
“In our opinion, under the 1894 Act when
possession is taken after award is passed under
Section 16 or under Section 17 before the passing
of the award, land absolutely vests in the State onSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 17 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
drawing of panchnama of taking possession,
which is the mode of taking possession.
Thereafter, any re-entry in possession or retaining
the possession is wholly illegal and trespasser’s
possession inures for the benefit of the owner and
even in the case of open land, possession is
deemed to be that of the owner.”
32. The Constitution Bench further concluded that “mode of taking
possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section
24(2) of the Act is by drawing an inquest report/memorandum”.
33. The subject land is a large tract of substantially vacant land.
Bearing the aforesaid in mind, we may now examine whether the LAC
had taken over possession of the subject land.
34. It is relevant to refer to the counter affidavit filed by the LAC.
Paragraphs 5, 5A & 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC are
reproduced below: –
“5. That it is submitted that the lands of village
Bamnoli were notified vide Notification under section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 04.11.2004 which
was followed by Notification under section 6 of the
said Act vide Notification dated 31.01.2005. The
Award No. 1/07-08 dated 06.08.2007 was also passed
in accordance with the law under Section 11 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5A. That it is submitted that the physical possession of
the lands falling in only Khasra number 29//5/2(2-17)
was duly taken on the spot on 14.09.2007 by preparing
possession proceeding and was handed over to the
DDA on the spot. On 23/08/2007 notice U/s 12(2) was
issued to the recorded owner. It is submitted that the
compensation however could not be paid as the
recorded owner never turned up to claim theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 18 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
compensation and as per the copies of the sale deed,
attached with the writ petition, it transpired that the
subject land has been sold to the petitioner herein. It is
submitted that the petitioner did not get the said land
mutated in its name nor the petitioner also approached
the office of answering respondent seeking
compensation.
6. That it is submitted that the Award No. 01/07-08
was passed for the total land admeasuring 2100 Bigha
06 Biswa and out of which the possession of 1331
Bigha 06 Biswa was taken after following the due
process of law. It is further submitted that the
possession of the land measuring 769 Bigha could not
be taken due to the stay orders passed by the Hon’ble
Court and built up. It is submitted that the total
compensation determined by the answering respondent
vide the above-said Award was Rs.1,11,75,72,754/-
and out of which, a total compensation of
Rs.89,08,80,652/- was duly disbursed to the recorded
owners and the balance amount of compensation left to
be paid is Rs.22,66,92,102/-. It is thus apparent that the
answering respondent has not only taken the
possession of substantial lands under reference but also
has disbursed the substantial quantum of compensation
against the said Award.”
[emphasis added]
35. It is clear from the above, that LAC’s case is that the physical
possession of the land falling in Khasra No.29//5/2 (2-17) was taken
on the spot on 14.09.2007 by preparing possession proceeding and the
same was handed over to the DDA on the same date. The LAC claims
that out of the total land admeasuring 2100 Bighas 06 Biswas, which
was covered under Award No.1/2007-08, possession of only 1331
Bigha 06 Biswas was taken after following the due process of law.
The possession of the remaining 769 Bigha was not taken over by
the LAC, which according to the LAC was on account of the stay
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 19 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
orders passed by this court and on account of the fact that the
properties were built up. However, despite seeking time to take
instructions, on a number of occasions, the LAC has not produced
any material to establish that it was interdicted from taking over
the possession of the subject land by any order passed by any
court. Although, it is stated that the possession of 1331 Bigha 06
Biswa was taken over, but there is no material on record to indicate
that the subject land is part of the land, the possession of which was
taken over by the LAC. The only specific assertions made in the
counter affidavit is in regard to taking over the possession of the land
comprising Khasra No. 29//5/2 (2-17), which the LAC claims was
taken over on 14.09.2007. Despite several opportunities, no record
was produced before this court to establish as to how and when the
possession of any other part of the subject land was taken over by the
LAC.
36. It is also relevant to note that the above captioned petition was
listed on 10.01.2018 and this court had directed the parties to maintain
the status quo with regard to the title, nature, possession and
construction on the subject land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an
application being CM No.6376/2018 seeking directions to permit the
petitioner to get the boundary wall of the subject land repaired under
the supervision of the local police. The petitioner claims that it has
been in an uninterrupted possession of the subject land for the last
twenty years and the boundary wall of subject land, being an old
construction, was broken at several places. Thus, the petitioner sought
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 20 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
directions for permitting repairs of the same. The petitioner also
produced the photographs of the parts of the boundary wall that were
broken. The photographs and the averments establish that the subject
land is largely vacant land and is surrounded by a boundary wall. The
director of the petitioner also filed an affidavit affirming that the
length of the boundary wall was approximately 4811 feet and
approximately 130 feet of the boundary wall required repairs at five
different places. The affidavit was also accompanied with the
photographs of the points where the wall was broken and included the
details as to the approximate length of the wall that required repairs at
the respective points.
37. It is also material to note that DDA has also filed the counter
affidavit affirming that “the possession of the land under reference
has not handed over to DDA by LAC/L&B”.
38. The LAC has not produced any material to establish that it had
taken over possession of any part of the subject land including the land
comprising Khasra No.29//5/2 (2-17). However, in respect of the land
comprising in Khasra No.29//5/2 (2-17), the LAC has affirmed that it
had taken possession of the said land on the spot on 14.09.2007. Thus,
we accept that the possession of the said land [Khasra no.29//5/2 (2-
17)] was taken over. However, that does not appear to be a part of the
subject land. It is not necessary to enter into the controversy whether
the said tract of land [Khasra No.29//5/2 (2-17)] is a part of the subject
land. Suffice it to state that we accept that the possession of the said
land was taken over by the LAC as affirmed by the LAC. Thus, if the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 21 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
said land is covered under the notification under Section 4 of the LA
Act and the Award, the acquisition of that land cannot be declared to
have been lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. But in
respect of lands other that the land comprising in Khasra No.29//5/2
(2-17), there is no specific assertion as to how and when the
possession of it was taken over by the LAC. Absent any material to
establish that LAC had taken over the possession of the subject land,
we are unable to accept that LAC had taken over the possession of the
subject land.
39. It is material to note that it is the LAC’s case that out of the total
land measuring 2100 Bigha 06 Biswa covered under the Award
No.1/2007-08, the possession of only 1331 Bigha 06 Biswa was taken
after following the due process of law. The remaining land measuring
769 Bigha could not be taken due to the stay orders passed by this
court or the land being built up. The LAC acknowledges that it did not
take over the possession of those lands. The LAC has also failed to
substantiate its reasons for not taking over the subject land.
40. Admittedly, the subject land is not built-up land. There is no
assertion by the LAC to the aforesaid effect. Thus, the only other
explanation offered by the LAC for not taking over the possession is
that it was interdicted from doing so by the stay orders passed by this
court. However, the LAC has neither referred to nor provided any
particulars of the stay order(s), whereby the LAC was interdicted from
taking over the possession of the subject land.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 22 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
41. It is relevant to note that whilst it is contended on behalf of the
LAC that possession of the land that was taken over by the LAC, was
handed over to the DDA; the DDA has in its counter affidavit,
affirmed in unequivocal terms that the “possession of the land under
reference has not been handed over by the LAC/Land & Building
Department (hereafter L&B Department)”. The only conclusion that
can be drawn is that the subject land is a part of the land, the
possession of which was not taken over by the LAC. [769 Bigha out
of total and 2100 Bigha 06 Biswa].
42. In view of the above, we accept that LAC has not taken over
possession of the subject land.
Whether compensation paid
43. The next question to be addressed is whether the second
condition regarding the payment of compensation to the land owner is
satisfied in the present case.
44. It is the LAC’s case that it had issued notice under Section
12(2) of the LA Act to the recorded owners; however, none had come
forward to claim compensation. According to Mr. Khan, the learned
counsel appearing for the LAC, the issuance of notice under Section
12(2) of the LA Act, amounts to tendering the compensation payable
in respect of the acquisition of the subject land. Therefore, the
requisite condition that the compensation amount was not paid as
stipulated under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, is not satisfied.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 23 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
45. In Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v.
Manoharlal, (supra) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
had interpreted the expression “compensation has not been paid” as
used in Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, to mean that the compensation has
not been tendered for payment under Section 31(1) of the LA Act. We
consider it apposite to set out the following extract from the said
decision: –
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). Though the word “paid” amounts to a
completed event however once payment of
compensation has been offered/tendered under Section
31(1), the acquiring authority cannot be penalised for
non-payment as the amount has remained unpaid due
to refusal to accept, by the landowner and Collector is
prevented from making the payment. Thus, the word
“paid” used in Section 24(2) cannot be said to include
within its ken “deposit” under Section 31(2). For that
special provision has been carved out in the proviso to
Section 24(2), which deals with the amount to be
deposited in the account of beneficiaries. Two
different expressions have been used in Section 24. In
the main part of Section 24, the word “paid” and in its
proviso “deposited” have been used.
*** ***
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 24 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
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.
209. It was urged that landowners can seek investment
in an interest bearing account, there is no doubt about
that investment can be sought from the court under
Sections 32 and 33 of the 1894 Act, but interest in
government securities is not more than what is
provided in Section 34 @ 9% from the date of taking
possession for one year and thereafter, @ 15%. We
take judicial notice of the fact in no other government
security rate of interest is higher on the amount being
invested under Sections 32 and 33 of the 1894 Act.
Higher rate of interest is available under Section 34 to
the advantage of landowners. It was submitted that in
case the amount is deposited in the court, it is on
behalf of the beneficiary. The submission overlooks
the form in which it used to be deposited in the
treasury too, that amount is also credited in the
treasury payable to the beneficiary specified in his
name with land details, date of award, etc.
210. There is another reason why this Court holds that
such an interpretation is reasonable and in tune with
parliamentary intent. Under the old regime, it was
open to the Collector to fix a convenient date or dates
for announcement of award, and tender payment. In
the event of refusal by the landowner to receive, or in
other cases, such as absence of the true owner, or in
case of dispute as to who was to receive it, no doubt,
the statute provided that the amount was to be
deposited with the court: as it does today, under
Section 77. Yet, neither during the time when the 1894
Act was in operation, nor under the 2013 Act, the
entire acquisition does not lapse for non-deposit of the
compensation amount in court. This is a significant
aspect which none of the previous decisions have
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 25 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
noticed. Thus, it would be incorrect to imply that
failure to deposit compensation [in court, under
Section 31(2)] would entail lapse, if the amounts have
not been paid for five years or more prior to the
coming into force of the 2013 Act. Such an
interpretation would lead to retrospective operation, of
a provision, and the nullification of acquisition
proceedings, long completed, by imposition of a norm
or standard, and its application for a time when it did
not exist.
211. If the expression “deposited” is held to be
included in the expression “paid” used in Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act, inconsistency and repugnancy would
be caused as between the proviso and the main sub-
section, which has to be avoided and the non-
compliance of the provisions of Section 31(2) is not
fatal. Even if the amount has not been deposited,
higher compensation has to follow in the exigency
proviso to Section 24(2).
212. In Black’s Law Dictionary, the word “tender” has
been defined to mean thus:
“tender, n. (16c) 1. A valid and sufficient offer
of performance; specific, an unconditional
offer of money or performance to satisfy a
debt or obligation a tender of delivery. The
tender may save the tendering party from a
penalty for non-payment or non-performance
or may, if the other party unjustifiably refuses
the tender, place the other party in default. Cf.
offer or performance; consignation.”
213. It is apparent that “tender” of the amount saves
the party tendering it from the consequence to be
visited on non-payment of the amount. The obligation
to make the payment has been considered in various
other laws and decisions. When obligation to payment
is fulfilled as to the scheme in the context of a
particular act, for that purpose, decisions under various
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 26 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
other laws are relevant and cannot be said to be
irrelevant.”
46. The Supreme Court also referred to the Standing Order
No.28/1909 issued by the State of Punjab, which is applicable to
Delhi, setting out the modes of payment. It would be relevant to refer
to the following passage of the aforesaid decision of the Constitution
Bench: –
230. Standing Order No. 28 was issued in 1909 by the
State of Punjab and was applicable to Delhi also,
which provided five modes of payment in Paras 74
and 75 thus:
“74. Methods of making payments. –There are five
methods of making payments:
(1) By direct payments, see Para 75(I) infra
(2) By order on treasury, see Para 75(II) infra
(3) By money order, see Para 75(III) infra
(4) By cheque, see Para 75(IV) infra
(5) By deposit in a treasury, see Para 75(V) infra
75. Direct payments. --
* * *
(V) By treasury deposit.–In giving notice of the
award under Section 12(2) and tendering payment
under Section 31(1) to such of the persons interested
as were not present personally or by their
representatives when the award was made, the officer
shall require them to appear personally or by
representatives by a certain date to receive payment of
the compensation awarded to them, intimating also
that no interest will be allowed to them if they fail to
appear, if they do not appear and do not apply for aSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 27 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
reference to the civil court under Section 18, the
officer shall after any further endeavors to secure their
attendance that may seem desirable, cause the
amounts due to be paid to the treasury as revenue
deposits payable to the persons to whom they are
respectively due and vouched for in the form marked
E below. The officer shall also give notice to the
payees of such deposits, specifying the treasury in
which the deposit has been made. When the payees
ultimately claim payment of sums placed in deposit,
the amounts will be paid to them in the same manner
as ordinary revenue deposit. The officer should, as far
as possible, arrange to make the payments due in or
near the village to which the payee belong in order
that the number of undisbursed sums to be placed in
deposits on account of non-attendance may be
reduced to a minimum. Whenever payment is claimed
through a representative whether before or after
deposit of the amount awarded, such representative,
must have legal authority for receiving the
compensation on behalf of his principal.”
*** *** ***
Sub-para (V) of the above makes it clear that payment
is credited to the treasury when a person who is
served with a notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894
Act, is not present and the award is passed. When a
notice is given to receive the payment of
compensation and in case they fail to appear, the
amount has to be paid to the treasury as revenue
deposit payable to the landowner.
231. Rules and the Standing Orders are binding on
the authorities concerned and they have to follow
them. They deposit the amounts in court only when a
reference (for higher compensation) is sought, not
otherwise. Even if a person refuses to accept it and the
amount is deposited in court or even it is not tendered,
only higher interest follows under Section 34. Once
Rules have prevailed since long and even if it is
assumed that deposit in court is mandatory on being
prevented from payment as envisaged under Section
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 28 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
31(1), the only liability to make the payment of higher
interest is fastened upon the State. The liability to pay
the amount with interest would subsist. When amounts
are deposited in court, there would occur a procedural
irregularity and the adverse consequence envisaged is
under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. The consequence of
non-deposit in the court is that the amount of the
landowner cannot be invested in the government
securities as envisaged under Sections 32 and 33 of the
1894 Act, in which interest is not more 15%. Thus, no
prejudice is caused to the landowners rather they stand
to gain and still payment is safe as it is kept in the
court. We have already held that there is a distinction
between the expression “paid” and “deposited”, thus
the amount being deposited as per Rules in the treasury
or as per the Standing Orders considering the scheme
of Section 31 read with Section 34 of the 1894 Act,
which are in pari materia with Sections 77 and 80 of
the 2013 Act. We are of the considered opinion that
acquisition cannot be invalidated, only higher
compensation would follow in case amount has not
been deposited with respect to majority of
landholdings, all the beneficiaries would be entitled for
higher compensation as envisaged in the proviso to
Section 24(2).
*** ***
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or
non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation
to pay is complete by tendering the amount under
Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to
accept compensation or who sought reference for
higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act.”
47. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution
Bench, there is no cavil that the tendering of the compensation due to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 29 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
the land owner under Section 31(1) of the LA Act would be sufficient
to exclude the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as the
same is required to be construed as the compensation paid for the
purpose of the said Section.
48. In view of the above, the question that follows is whether the
LAC has tendered the compensation for the subject land. Since the
subject land was not mutated in the name of the petitioner, the LAC
could not expect to seek out the petitioner and offer the payment of
compensation of the acquired land. Tendering of the amount due to the
recorded owner would, in our view, constitute tendering of the
compensation under Section 31(1) of the LA Act which would render
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act inapplicable. Thus, the question that
follows is whether the LAC had tendered the compensation to the
recorded owner of the subject land.
49. As noted above, it is contended on behalf of the LAC that
issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act would constitute
tendering of the compensation of the subject land. Section 12(2) of
the LA Act reads as under: –
“12. Award of Collector when to be final. –
(1) *** ***
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his
award to such of the persons interested as are not
present personally or by their representatives when the
award is made.”
50. The plain reading of Section 12(2) of the LA Act indicates that
it is the notice of the award to the persons who are interested and were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 30 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
not present personally or by their representative when the award was
made.
51. In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land
Acquisition Officer & Anr.11, the Supreme Court had held as under:
“5. In dealing with this question, it is relevant to bear in mind
the legal character of the award made by the Collector under
Section 12. In a sense it is a decision of the Collector reached by
him after holding an enquiry as prescribed by the Act. It is a
decision, inter alia, in respect of the amount of compensation
which should be paid to the person interested in the property
acquired; but legally the award cannot be treated as a decision; it
is in law an offer or tender of the compensation determined by
the Collector to the owner of the property under acquisition. If
the owner accepts the offer no further proceeding is required to
be taken; the amount is paid and compensation proceedings are
concluded. If, however, the owner does not accept the offer
Section 18 gives him the statutory right of having the question
determined by court, and it is the amount of compensation which
the court may determine that would bind both the owner and the
Collector. In that case it is on the amount thus determined
judicially that the acquisition proceedings would be concluded.
It is because of this nature of the award that the award can be
appropriately described as a tender or offer made by the
Collector on behalf of the Government to the owner of the
property for his acceptance. In Ezra v. Secretary of State [(1903)
ILR 30 Cal 605-36 at p. 86] it has been held that “the meaning to
be attached to the word ‘award’ under Section 11 and its nature
and effect must be arrived at not from the mere use of the same
expression in both instances but from the examination of the
provisions of the law relating to the Collector’s proceedings
culminating in the award. The consideration to which have
referred satisfy us that the Collector acts in the matter of the
enquiry and the valuation of the land only as an agent of the
Government and not as a judicial officer; and that consequently,
although the Government is bound by his proceedings, the11 1961 SCC OnLine SC 140
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 31 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
persons interested are not concluded by his finding regarding the
value of the land or the compensation to be awarded”. Then the
High Court has added that such tender once made is binding on
the Government and the Government cannot require that the
value fixed by its own officer acting on its behalf should be open
to question at its own instance before the civil court. The said
case was taken before the Privy Council in Ezra v. Secretary of
State for India [(1905) ILR 32 Cal 605] and their Lordships have
expressly approved of the observations made by the High Court
to which we have just referred. Therefore, if the award made by
the Collector is in law no more than an offer made on behalf of
the Government to the owner of the property then the making of
the award as properly understood must involve the
communication of the offer to the party concerned. That is the
normal requirement under the contract law and its applicability
to cases of award made under the Act cannot be reasonably
excluded. Thus considered the date of the award cannot be
determined solely by reference to the time when the award is
signed by the Collector or delivered by him in his office; it must
involve the consideration of the question as to when it was
known to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If
that be the true position then the literal and mechanical
construction of the words “the date of the award” occurring in
the relevant section would not be appropriate.”
[emphasis added]
52. In the aforesaid view, an award can be considered as an offer
and tender of compensation. It would thus follow that the
communication of the award in terms of Section 12(2) of the LA Act
would cement the said tender. It would enable the person who was not
present when the award was made to collect the compensation as
determined under the award.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 32 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
53. We also consider it apposite to refer to the following
observations made by the Supreme Court in Government of NCT of
Delhi & Anr. v. Dayanand & Anr.12:
5. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the
present case the possession was taken in respect of the
major portion of the land i.e. 19 biswas out of 20 biswas
and the possession of one (01) biswas could not be taken
due to built-up. Even the notice under Section 12(2) was
issued upon the original writ petitioner vide registered
post No.4065 dated 27.02.2009, however, when the
original writ petition did come to collect the
compensation, it was sent to the revenue deposit. Once
the notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued
and served upon the original writ petitioner and he was
called upon to collect the compensation and thereafter,
when he did not come to collect the compensation and
then the compensation was sent to the revenue deposit,
thereafter it would not be open for the original writ
petitioner to contend that as the compensation has not
been paid the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have
lapsed. The original writ petitioner cannot be permitted to
take the benefit of his own conduct/wrong.
6. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case
of Indore Development Authority (supra) and considering
the facts narrated hereinabove and more particularly,
when the major portion of the land in question was taken
as far as back on 13.04.2009 by drawing possession
proceedings which is held to be permissible in the case
of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal: (2020)
8 SCC 129 and taking into consideration the fact that the
notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued and
served upon the original writ petitioner but he did not
collect the compensation and therefore, the same was
again sent to the revenue deposit, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court declaring that the12 (2023) 5 SCC 381
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 33 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
acquisition in respect of land in question is deemed to
have lapsed is unsustainable.
54. It follows from the above observations that if a notice under
Section 12(2) of the LA Act is served on the landowner and the
landowner is called upon to collect the compensation, the same would
constitute tendering of the compensation.
55. Having stated the above, it is also relevant to note that there is
no specific format of notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act. It is
also important that notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act should be
in conformity with the Standing Order No.28/1909 as applicable to
NCT of Delhi. As noted above, the Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal (supra) had
held the same to be mandatory. In addition, it is also necessary that
the said notice comply with the Standing Instructions dated
12.05.2006 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, which
provides that a notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act be issued as
soon as the award is pronounced and the money is received by the
LAC. It also provides that a copy of the notice be kept on the record.
56. In DDA v. Sukhbir Singh13, the Supreme Court had examined
the mode of payment of the compensation in the context of the
Standing Order No.28/1909 and Standing Instructions of Government
of NCT of Delhi dated 12.05.2006. The Supreme Court referred to
Standing Order No.28/1909 and observed as under: –
13 (2016) 16 SCC 258
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 34 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
“17. Far from the aforesaid Standing Order coming to
the assistance of the appellants, it is clear that the said
Standing Order fleshes out Section 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act by insisting that compensation must
be paid as soon as the award is announced, vide Para
71. Sufficient notice must be given to enable all payees
to assemble at a place where they will receive their
dues immediately. It is emphasised by the said
paragraph that much trouble will be avoided if the
principle that payment of compensation should be
made at the time of the award, is strictly observed.
Also, it is important that the authorities draw in
advance a sum sufficient to cover the probable amount
of the award and to make payments.
18. Para 73 makes it clear that payment may be
accepted either without protest or under protest, and
Para 74 makes it clear that there are five methods of
making payment. The first four methods are all
methods strictly in consonance with Section 31 of the
Land Acquisition Act in that they are all direct
payments that have to be made to persons ready to
accept compensation. This is clear from a reading of
sub-paras (I) to (IV) of Para 74. Even the second
method, which is payment by order on the treasury, is
a direct method of payment in cases where no officer
is specially deputed for acquisition of land. In such
cases, instead of making a direct payment, a receipt is
countersigned making it immediately payable at the
treasury to the payee. Otherwise, in certain
circumstances, payment is to be made by money order
and/or by cheque. When we come to sub-para (V), it is
clear that payment is made into the treasury only
when persons who are served notice under Section
12(2) are not present personally at the time the award
is delivered. Even though they may not appear at that
stage, the officer shall require them to appear
personally or by representatives by a certain date to
receive payment of compensation awarded. It is only if
they fail to appear after such an intimation, and if the
officer, after further endeavours to secure their
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 35 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
attendance, cannot so secure their attendance, that
amounts due are to be paid to the treasury as revenue
deposited payable to persons to whom they are due. It
is clear, therefore, that sub-para (V), when read in its
proper perspective, is not a separate mode of payment
by itself as is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants. It is a residuary mode of payment after all
necessary efforts have been made by the authorities
to secure the attendance of the persons entitled to
compensation, and it is only after all such methods
have failed that, as a last resort, the money is then to
be deposited in the treasury. In any case, such deposit
in the treasury is referable only to Section 31(1) and
cannot ever be a substitute for deposit before the
Reference Court as provided under Section 31(2) of
the Land Acquisition Act, which applies in the
circumstances mentioned in the aforesaid sub-section.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that no distinction
between the facts of this case and the facts in Pune
Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 :
(2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] can be drawn on this ground,
and the ratio of Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune
Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,
(2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] will
apply on all fours to the facts of the present case.
20. At this juncture, it is necessary to advert to a
standing instruction of the Government of NCT of
Delhi dated 12-5-2006 in which, pursuant to the
directions passed by the High Court of Delhi vide
order dated 5-5-2005 in Udai Singh v. Union of India
[Udai Singh v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 1161 of
1988, order dated 5-5-2005 (Del)] , the Government of
NCT of Delhi has fixed various time-frames to
complete acquisition proceedings. In so doing, what is
of significance is contained in Paras 3 and 4 which are
set out hereinbelow:
“3. Taking over possession of notified land:
(i) As soon as the award is announced, the
Land Acquisition Collector shallSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 36 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
compulsorily issue notice to the interested
persons under Section 12 of the LA Act and
the service of notice shall be kept in records
and shall also submit a demand of the
compensation amount to the Land and
Building Department with a copy to
DDA/intending agency within 30 days of the
announcement of the award. The Land and
Building Department shall forward the
demand to DDA within 7 days. DDA/other
agency will release the payment to the L&B
Deptt. within 30 days after receipt of the
communication from the L&B
Department/LAC, as the case may be. As
soon as the money is received by LAC,
notice under Section 12(2) shall be issued.
LAC will take over the possession of the
land and hand over the same to
DDA/intending department. The Land
Acquisition Collector shall not take
possession of the acquired land unless and
until the compensation amount is received
by him from the intending department.
(ii) It has been noticed that in a large
number of cases, LACs have not taken over
the possession of the notified land as
possession could not be taken by DDA due
to the fact that the land is heavily built up
and in some cases, some unauthorised
colonies have come up which are under
consideration of the Government of India for
regularisation. In all such cases, LACs shall
prepare a separate list village-wise and shall
be submitted to the competent authority for
taking a policy decision.
4. Payment of compensation/enhanced
compensation:
On receipt of the amount of compensation
from DDA/requisitioning agency and on
taking the possession of the land, the LandSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 37 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
Acquisition Collector shall send a
reference/letter within 15 days to the
interested persons for collecting the
payment of compensation. The Land
Acquisition Collector will make the
payment of the compensation within 60 days
to the landowner. In case of any dispute, the
Land Acquisition Collector will refer the
matter to the ADJ Court under Section 30
immediately after expiry of the 60 days. If
interested person is not coming forward for
taking compensation amount and payment
cannot be made within 60 days then
compensation amount should be deposited
in the court under Section 31 within next 15
days.”
21. A cursory reading of these paragraphs will show
that it is only pursuant to judicial orders that the State
wakes up from its slumber. It is important to note that
a notice of award under Section 12(2) to persons
interested can only be issued after money is received
by the Land Acquisition Collector, and that the said
Collector shall not take possession of land unless and
until compensation amount is received by him.
Further, actual payment to the landowners must be
made latest within a period of 60 days. It is high time
that the State realises that persons whose property is
expropriated need to be paid immediately so as to
rehabilitate themselves. Also, it cannot be forgotten
that the amount usually offered by way of an award of
a Land Acquisition Collector under the 1894 Act is
way below the real market value, which is only
awarded and paid years later when the reference
proceedings culminate in judgments of the High
Courts and of this Court.”
57. Although the decision in DDA v. Sukhbir Singh (supra) was
rendered prior to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Indore
Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal (supra), the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 38 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
Constitution Bench had affirmed the view in regard to the extent and
mode of payment of compensation as held in the said decision.
58. It is apparent from the Standing Instructions that LAC can
tender the compensation only when it is available with him. A notice
under Section 12(2) of the LA Act is also required to be issued in
terms of the Standing Instructions on the LAC receiving the funds for
tendering of the compensation. Although, an award has been held to
be an offer for compensation; the communication of the award would
be construed as a tender of compensation only if serves as a
communication inviting the landowners to receive the compensation.
59. It is also important to refer to paragraph no. 4 of the Standing
Instructions dated 12.05.2006, issued by the Government of NCT of
Delhi. The same requires the LAC to send a letter to the interested
persons for collecting the payment of compensation, within a period of
fifteen days of receipt of compensation from the DDA/intending
agency.
60. In terms of Paragraph 3 of the Standing Instructions, the LAC is
required to compulsorily issue notice to all interested persons under
Section 12 of the LA Act immediately on the award being announced.
He is also required to submit a demand for the compensation amount
to the Land & Building Department with a copy to the DDA/intending
agency within thirty days of the announcement of the award. Clearly,
if the amount is not available with the LAC, the making of the award
would not serve as a tender of the compensation as awarded to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 39 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
persons who are present at the time of announcing the award. The
DDA or the intending agency is required to release the payment to the
L&B Department within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of communication from the L&B Department. The aforesaid
Standing Instruction requires that as soon as money is received by the
LAC, a notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act shall be issued and
the LAC would take over possession of the land and handover the
same to the DDA/intending department. It is also material to note that
the said Standing Instructions14 requires the LAC would not to take
possession of the acquired land unless and until the compensation
amount is received by him from the intending department.
61. In Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Dayanand & Anr.
(supra), the Supreme Court had also specified that issuance of notice
under Section 12(2) of the LA Act and calling upon the landowner to
collect the compensation would serve as a tender of compensation.
Thus, clearly a communication could serve as a tender under Section
31(1) of the Act only if the LAC had the necessary funds.
62. In the present case, there is a dispute as to whether any notice
under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued in respect of the subject
land. Whilst the LAC in its counter affidavit has affirmed that a notice
under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued to the recorded owners,
no document or record has been produced to substantiate the same.
14 Standing Instructions dated 12.05.2006 issued by Government of NCT of Delhi: File No.
F.1/26/88/L&B/WC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 40 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
We consider it apposite to set out paragraph 5A of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC. The same is reproduced below:
“5A. That it is submitted that the physical possession of the
lands falling in only Khasra number 29//5/2(2-17) was duly
taken on the spot on 14.09.2007 by preparing possession
proceeding and was handed over to the DDA on the spot. On
23/08/2007 notice U/s 12(2) was issued to the recorded owner.
It is submitted that the compensation however could not be
paid as the recorded owner never turned up to claim the
compensation and as per the copies of the sale deed, attached
with the writ petition, it transpired that the subject land has
been sold to the petitioner herein. It is submitted that the
petitioner did not get the said land mutated in its name nor the
petitioner also approached the office of answering respondent
seeking compensation.”
63. A plain reading of the above paragraph suggests that a notice
under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued in respect of the land,
the possession of which was taken over.
64. As noted above, Paragraph 3 of the Standing Instructions dated
12.05.2006 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi requires that:
“..as soon as the money is received by LAC, notice
under Section 12(2) of the LA Act shall be issued. The
LAC will take over the possession of the land and hand
over the same to DDA/intending department. The Land
Acquisition Collector shall not take possession of the
acquired land unless and until the compensation
amount is received by him from the intending
department.”
65. It is material to note that in the present case, the LAC neither
had the entire funds for payment of compensation to all land owners
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 41 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
nor did he proceed to take possession of the lands covered under the
award.
66. The petitioner has contested the LAC’s claim that he had in fact
issued any notice to erstwhile owners of the subject land, as claimed
by the LAC. This court had adjourned the proceedings more than
once so as to enable the learned counsel for the LAC to obtain
instructions as to the service of notice on the erstwhile owners of the
subject land. However, the LAC did not produce any evidence to
substantiate that any such notice was issued or served on the erstwhile
owners of the subject land. Paragraph 3(i) of the aforementioned
Standing Instructions dated 12.05.2006 requires that notice under
Section 12 of the LA Act be issued to all interested persons and the
“service of notice shall be kept in records”. Thus, if a notice had been
served under Section 12(2) of the LA Act as required by the LAC, the
service of the same was required to be kept on records. However, as
noted above, despite opportunity, the LAC has not produced any
record to substantiate that he had issued any notice under Section
12(2) of the LA Act and the same was served on the erstwhile owners
of the subject land.
67. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that LAC had
served notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act on the erstwhile
owners of the subject land or attempted to do so.
68. Thus, even if it is accepted – which we don’t – that in the
absence of the requisite funds with the LAC, notice of award under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 42 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
Section 12(2) of the LA Act would serve as a tender of compensation
under Section 31 of the LA Act and is required to be construed as paid
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; we are unable to accept that any
such tender was made in the absence of sufficient material to establish
that a notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was in fact issued or
served on the erstwhile owners of the subject land.
69. In view of the above, we reject the contention that the LAC had
tendered any compensation to the petitioner or the recorded owner of
the subject land.
CONCLUSION
70. In view of the above, the petition is allowed as the LAC had
failed to establish that it had either tendered compensation for the
subject land or taken over possession of the same. Thus, in terms of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition of the subject land has
lapsed.
71. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications are also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SACHIN DATTA, J
MARCH 03, 2025
M*
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAM
KUMAR W.P.(C) No.250/2018 Page 43 of 43
Signing Date:06.03.2025
20:10:28
[ad_1]
Source link