Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

R.F.Nariman, J.

Leave granted in S.L.P(C) No. 28304 of 2015.

These two appeals revisit the question of the correct construction of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”). We are constrained to observe that we are hearing these matters despite the fact that the law has been settled in Pune Municipal Corporation v. H.M. Solanki, 2014 (3) SCC 183, which is now stare decisis in that it has been followed in a large number of judgments[1].

6. The present appeals have, therefore, been filed by both the Land Acquisition Collector and the DDA.

7. Shri Amarendra Sharan, Senior Advocate, appearing for the DDA and Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocate, appearing for the Land Acquisition Collector, have argued before us that Pune Municipal Corporation needs to be revisited on essentially two grounds. The first is that at least as far as Delhi is concerned, it is governed by a Standing Order of 26th June, 1909 as amended up to date, in which one method of making payment under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is by deposit in the treasury. The distinguishing feature of this case is, therefore, that unlike in Pune Municipal Corporation, deposit in a treasury is a recognized mode of making payment for the purpose of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, and that this being the case, it is clear that Pune Municipal Corporation would not, therefore, apply to the facts of the present case. A second argument was also made by both the learned counsels to the effect that Pune Municipal Corporation did not notice that since possession had been taken in the facts of the present case, in the year 2000, vesting of the land in the State had already taken place and the original owner had been divested of his title. This being the case, the acquisition proceedings being over in the year 2000, no question of lapse of a proceeding that is already over can possibly take place in the year 2014 after the enactment of the 2013 Act. For the aforesaid proposition, the learned counsel relied upon Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P., (1993) 4 SCC 369. They further argued that, in the present case, a subsequent purchaser had come into the picture by a registered sale deed dated 23rd June, 1992. This being the case, it is clear that the State was in a dilemma as to who should be paid compensation, and it is for this reason that compensation was neither tendered nor paid after the award. For this purpose, they relied upon Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177.

15. The stage is now set to consider the arguments of the appellants before us. Before doing so, it is important to first set out what exactly has been held in the landmark judgment of three Hon’ble Judges (in which one of us Kurian, J. is a member) in the Pune Municipal Corporation case. The Court was concerned with what is the true meaning of the expression “compensation has not been paid” occurring in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is important first to notice the argument that was made on behalf of the Pune Municipal Corporation and the Land Acquisition Collector which is, in paragraph 7, extracted herein below:

19. Paragraph 73 makes it clear that payment may be accepted either without protest or under protest, and Paragraph 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-paragraphs (I) to (IV) of paragraph 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 paragraph (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 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 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 Corporation can be drawn on this ground, and the ratio of Pune Municipal Corporation will apply on all fours to the facts of the present case.