Delhi District Court
Shri Mandir Sitaramji And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 21 November, 2014
In the Court of Sh. P.K. Matto, Additional District Judge01,
(EAST)Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
LAC no: 32/1/2009
In the matter of:
Shri Mandir Sitaramji and another .............Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ............Respondents
ORDER:
1. This order of mine will dispose of the application filed by the petitioner no.1 u/s 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act.
2. Briefly stating this is the reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. The matter is running at the stage of the evidence of the petitioners, The petitioner no.1 has also filed the present application u/s 24 of the Amended Land Acquisition Act, stating therein that the petitioner is claiming enhancement of the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 311 crore and further stated that during the pendency of the present proceedings the legislature has repealed the Land Acquisition Act and enacted The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and further stated that the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as per the new act and as per section 24, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, LAC:32/1/2009 Shri Mandir Sitaramji & anr. Vs UOI & ors. 1 Of 7 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, the compensation in respect to the entire land has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, i.e.the petitioner, owner or the mortgagee (Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited) and prayed for making an order that the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
4. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has stated that he does not want to file any reply to the said application and he will straightway argue on the application.
5. Whereas, the Respondent no.2 and 3 are already exparte.
6. I have heard the ld.counsel for the petitioners and ld.counsel for the respondent no.1 and perused the record.
7. The ld.counsel for the petitioner no.1 has submitted since the LAC has not deposited the amount in the account of the petitioner no.1, so, as per section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement act 2013, the petitioner no.1 is entitled to get the relief under the said act.
8. Whereas, the counsel for the respondent no.1 has vehemently opposed the said application and stated that since their lordship of hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & others CA No.877/2014 in para no. 17 is pleased to hold that the LAC:32/1/2009 Shri Mandir Sitaramji & anr. Vs UOI & ors. 2 Of 7 petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to get any relief u/s 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, since the amount of compensation awarded by the LAC has already been deposited and in para no. 17 of the said judgment, it is well clarified that if the amount of compensation is deposited in the court by the Land Acquisition Collector, the litigant cannot be benefited of the same section of the amended act. He has also submitted that since the present matter is a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and this court has to deal with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and this court cannot go beyond scope of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He has also submitted that since the amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector has already been ordered to be deposited in the form of FDR, so the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit under the section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, which has come into existence only in the year 2014, so the application under consideration filed by the petitioner no.1 cannot be entertained by this court. So, as per the law laid down by the apex court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & others CA No.877/2014 also the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of the section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
LAC:32/1/2009 Shri Mandir Sitaramji & anr. Vs UOI & ors. 3 Of 7
9. Whereas, the ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner no.2 has very fairly admitted that as per the law laid down by the apex court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & others, CA No.877/2014 the said relief cannot be granted to the petitioners, as on today.
10.I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the ld.counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.1 and perused the record.
11.The perusal of the record shows that this is the reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and this court has to deal with the issue framed by this court ''whether the amount vide award dated 26.7.2007 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector is liable to be enhanced? If yes, at what rate? As this issue was framed by this court on dated 7.4.2011 and the present reference has been made to this court by the LAC to deal with the same and while dealing with the same issue, this court cannot go beyond the scope of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and since the petitioners have sought the enhancement of the amount of compensation, so, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioners to prove that they are entitled for the enhancement of the amount of compensation and this issue can be decided only on the basis of the evidence to be produced by the petitioners. The ld.counsel for the petitioner no.1 has submitted that since in the case in hand the amount has not been paid to the petitioners, so, the petitioner no.1 is entitled to get the benefit of section 24 of The Right to Fair LAC:32/1/2009 Shri Mandir Sitaramji & anr. Vs UOI & ors. 4 Of 7 Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. Whereas, the counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that since the amount of compensation has already been deposited by the LAC in the court,so, the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this court has perused the above said judgment passed by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & others CA No.877/2014. Perusal of the para no. 17 of the said judgment shows that their Lordship had held therein that: ''17 While enacting section 24(2), Parliament definitely had in its view section 31 of the 1894 Act. From that one thing is clear that it did not intend to equate the word ''paid'' to ''offered'' or ''tendered''. But at the same time, we do not think that by use of the word''paid'', Parliament intended receipt of compensation by the landowners/persons interested. In our view, it is not appropriate to give a literal construction to the expression ''paid'' used in this (subsection(2) of section 24). If a literal construction were to be given, then it would amount to ignoring procedure, mode and manner of deposit provided in section 31(2) of the 1894 Act in the event of happening of any of the contingencies contemplated therein which may prevent LAC:32/1/2009 Shri Mandir Sitaramji & anr. Vs UOI & ors. 5 Of 7 the Collector from making actual payment of compensation. We are of the view, therefore, that for the purposes of section 24(2), the compensation shall be regarded as ''paid'' if the compensation has been offered to the person interested and such compensation has been deposited in the court where reference under section 18 can be made on happening of any of the contingencies contemplated under section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. In other words, the compensation may be said to have been ''paid'' within the meaning of Section 24(2) when the Collector (or for that matter Land Acquisition Officer) has discharged his obligation and deposited the amount of compensation in court and made that amount available to the interested person to be dealt with as provided in Sections 32 and 33.''
12.Thus, from the para no. 17 of the said judgment, it is clear that once the LAC has deposited the amount in the court, then the person whose land is acquired cannot be benefited of section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. Even otherwise, the perusal of the record shows that the LAC has also referred this matter to this court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and another matter is also referred to this court u/s 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, so, in the given circumstances this court is of the firmed view that when the dispute arose between the parties, then the LAC has resorted to refer the present matter to this court and another matter u/s 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act and unless and until the issue of aportionment and rights of the parties are not adjudicated upon by the LAC:32/1/2009 Shri Mandir Sitaramji & anr. Vs UOI & ors. 6 Of 7 court in the matter u/s 3031 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not possible to make the payment to any of the the claimants.
13.So, cumulative effect of the above discussion is that as this court is dealing with the present matter u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, so, the present matter is not governed by the section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. Since the amount of awarded compensation has already been deposited by the LAC in the court and the same has been deposited in the form of FDR vide order dated 6.9.2014, so the petitioner cannot be benefited of section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner no.2 has very fairly admitted that in view of the law laid down by the apex court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & others, CA No.877/2014, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief u/s 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
14.Cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief u/s 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, so, the application filed by the petitioner no.1 u/s 24 of the amended Land Acquisiton Act is dismissed.
15.In the above said terms the application filed by the petitioner no.1 stands disposed of.
Pronounced in the open court.
Dated: 21.11.2014 (P.K. MATTO)
Addl. District Judge01
East District
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi.
LAC:32/1/2009 Shri Mandir Sitaramji & anr. Vs UOI & ors. 7 Of 7
************************************************ LAC:32/1/2009 Shri Mandir Sitaramji & anr. Vs UOI & ors. 8 Of 7