PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusHARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI & ORS.

                    [2014) 1 S.C.R. 783


        PLINE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.                        A
                              V.
       HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 877 of 2014)

                    JANUARY 24, 2014.
                                                                  8
    [R.M. LODHA, MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN
                  JOSEPH, JJ.]

   RIGHT    TO   FAIR  COMPENSATION      AND
TRANSPARENCY       IN   LAND   ACQUISITION,                       C
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013:

      s. 24(2) - Proceedings deemed to have.lapsed -Award
made 5 years prior to coming into force of 2013 Act -
Compensation neither paid to land owners/claimants nor 0
deposited in court - Held: Subject land acquisition
proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed u/s 24(2) of the
2013 Act - Deposit of the amount of compensation in the
government treasury is not equivalent to the amount of
compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested and
liability of State to pay interest subsists till the amount has E
not been deposited in court - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
s. 11 - Interpretation of statute.

     s.114(2) - Repeal and savings - Held: Sub-s. (2) of s.
114 makes s. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1891 applicable        F
with regard to the effect of repeal but this is subject to the
provisions in the 2013 Act - Under s.24(2) land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are
deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five
years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and           G
possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not
been paid - The legal fiction uls 24(2) comes into operation
as soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied - General
Clauses Act, 1897 - s. 6.
                             783                                  H
    784    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A      A notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  in respect of the lands of the respondents was published
  on 30.09.2004. On 26.12.2005, the declaration u/s 6 was
  published in the official gazette. On 31.01.2008 the
  Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award u/s 11
B of the 1894 Act. In the instant appeals filed by the
  Municipal Corporation, it was contended for the
  respondents-landowners that by virtue of s. 24(2) of the
  Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
  Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
c the subject acquisition would be deemed to have lapsed
  because the award u/s 11 of the 1894 Act was made more
  than five years prior to the commencement of 2013 Act
  and no compensation was paid to the land owners nor
  the amount of compensation was deposited in the court
  by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
0
       Dismissing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, which begins
  with non obstante clause and has overriding effect over
E s.24(1), enacts that in relation to the land acquisition
  proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where an award
  has been made five years or more prior to the
  commencement of the 2013 Act and either of the two
  contingencies is satisfied, viz; (i) physical possession of
F the land has not been taken or (ii) the "compensation has
  not been paid", such acquisition proceedings shall be
  deemed to have lapsed. [Para 11) [791-A-C]
       1.2. The expression, "compensation has not been
  paid'' has to be construed in terms of s. 31 of the 1894
G Act, which enjoins upon the Collector to tender payment
  of compensation to the person interested or deposit of
  the same in the court. The mandatory nature of the
  provision in s. 31(2) with regard to deposit of the
  compensation in the court is further fortified by the
H provisions contained in ss. 32, 33 and 34. For the
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. HARAKCHAND 785
            MISIRIMAL SOLANKI
purposes of s. 24(2), the compensation shall be regarded      A
as "paid" if the compensation has been offered to the
person interested and such compensation has been
deposited in the court where reference uls 18 can be
made on happening of any of the contingencies
contemplated uls 31(2) of the 1894 Act. [Para 12, 14, 16      B
and 17] [791-E; 792-C; 793-A-B, F-H]

      1.3. The deposit of the amount of compensation in the
government treasury is not equivalent to the amount of
compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested, C
as the deposit of the amount of the compensation in the
state's revenue account is of no avail and the liability of
the State to pay interest subsists till the amount has not
been deposited in court. The1894 Act being an
expropriatory legislation has to be strictly followed. The
procedure, mode and manner for payment of D
compensation are prescribed in Part V (ss. 31-34) of the
1894 Act. The Collector, with regard to the payment of
compensation, can only act in the manner so provided.
It is settled proposition of law that where a power is given
to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be E
done in that way or not at all. Other methods of
performance are necessarily forbidden. [para 18-19] [794-
B-C, E-F]

    lvo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes and Others v. State of     F
Goa and Another 2011 (2) SCR 1142    =(2011) 11 SCC 506;
Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd
1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 790 = (1996) 2 sec 71 - relied on.
    Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor A.LR. 1936 PC 253(2) -
referred to                                                   G

   1.4. In the instant case, the award pertaining to the
subject land has been made by the Special Land
Acquisition Office.r more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act. Admittedly, the                 H
        786      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 1 S.C.R.

0
    A ·compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the
       landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the
       court. This Court, therefore, holds that the subject land
       acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed
       u/s 24(2) of the 2013 Act. [para 20] [794-G; 795-A-C]
    B
             2. It cannot be said that the proceedings in the
       instant case are not affected at all in view of s.114(2) of
       t~e 2013 Act. Section 114(1) of the 2013 Act repeals 1894
       Act. Sub-s. (2) of s. 114, however, makes s. 6 of the
       General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable with regard to the
    C effect of repeal but this is subject to the provisions in the
       2013 Act. Under s.24(2) land acquisition proceedings
       initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed
       to have lapsed where award has been made five years
       or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and
    D possession of the land is not taken or compensation has
       not been paid. The legal fiction u/s 24(2) comes into
       operation as soon as conditions stated therein are
       satisfied. [para 21] [795-C-F]

    E                        Case Law Reference:
              2011 (2) SCR 1142              relied on        para 19
              1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 790        relied on        para,_19
              A.l.R. 1936 PC 253(2)          referred to      para 18
    F
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 877
        of 2014.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 24.10.2008 of the High
    G Court of Bombay in WP No. 1296 of 2008.
                                      WITH
        C.A. Nos. 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885 and 886-
        894 of 2014.
    H
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. HARAKCHAND 787
            MISIRIMAL SOLANKI
      R.P. Bhat, lndu Malhotra, Jayashree Wad, Ashish Wad (for       A
J.S. Wad & Co.), Madhavi Divan, Asha Gopalan Nair, Kush
Chaturvedi, Vivek Jain, Nishtha Kumar, Suman Yadav, Apporva
Bhumsesh, Rajat Sehgal (for Vikas Mehta), Brijesh Kalappa,
Gopal Singh, Divya Nari (for N. Ganpathy), Anriuddha P. Mayee
for the appearing parties.                                           B

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Delay condoned in S.L.P. (C)
Nos.15847-15855 of 2010. Leave granted.
                                                                     c
      2. In these 18 appeals, by special leave, it is argued on
behalf of the respondents-landowners that in view of Section
24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and :rransparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(for short, '2013 Act') which has come into effect on 01.01.2014,    D
the subject land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, '1894 Act') have lapsed.
The question for decision relates to true meaning of the
expression: "compensation has not been paid" occurring in
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
                                                                     E
     3. It may not be necessary at all to go into the legality and
correctness of the impugned judgment, if the subject land
acquisition proceedings are held to have lapsed. We, therefore,
deal with this aspect first.
                                                                     F
      4. The brief facts necessary for consideration of the above
question are these. On 06.08.2002, the proposal of the
Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation (for
short, "Corporation") duly approved by the Standing Committee
for acquisition of lands admeasuring 43.94 acres for                 G
development of "Forest Garden" was sent to the Collector,
Pune. The Collector sanctioned the proposal and on
20.02.2003 forwarded the same to Special Land Acquisition
Officer (15), Pune for further action. On 30.09.2004, the
notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was published in        H
    788     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014] 1 S.C.R.


A the official gazette. Then notices under Section 4(1) were served
  upon the landowners/interested persons. On 26.12.2005, the
  declaration under Section 6 was published in the official
  gazette and on 02.02.2006, it was also published at the site
  and on the notice board of the Office of Talaltti. Following the
B notices under Section 9, on 31.01.2008 the Special Land
  Acquisition Officer made the award under Section 11 of the
  1894 Act.

        5. The landowners challenged the above acquisition
c proceedings before the Bombay High Court in 9 writ petitions.
  Of them, 2 were filed before making award and 7 after the
  award. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the
  validity of the award was laid on diverse grounds including (i)
  absence of resolution of the General Body of the Corporation;
  (ii) non-compliance with the provisions of Section SA, (iii) non-
0
  compliance with the provisions of Section 7, and (iv) lapsing
  of acquisition proceedings under Section 11A. The High Court
  on consideration of the arguments advanced before it by the
  parties h~s held that the acquisition proceedings for the
E development of "Forest Garden" could not be initiated by the
  Commissioner with the mere approval of the Standing
  Committee without resolution of the General Body of the
  Corporation. The acquisition proceedings were also held bad
  in law for non-compliance of Section 7 and other statutory
  breaches. Inter a/ia, the High Court has quashed the acquisition
F proceedings and gave certain directions including restoration
  of possession.
       6. It is argued on behalf of the landowners that by virtue of
  Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the subject acquisition shall be
G deemed to have been lapsed because the award under Section
  11 of the 1894 Act is made more than five years prior to the
  commencement of 2013 Act and no compensation has been
  paid to the owners nor the amount of compensation has been
  deposited in the court by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
H
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. HARAKCHAND 789
     MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [R.M. LODHA, J.]
     7. On the other hand, on behalf of the Corporation and so      A
also for the Collector, it is argued that the award was made by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31.01.2008 strictly in
terms of 1894 Act and on the very day the landowners were
informed regarding the quantum of compensation for their
respective lands. Notices were also issued to the landowners        B
to reach the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and
receive the amount of compensation and since they neither
received the compensation nor any request came from them
to make reference to the District Court unde.r Section 18, the
compensation amounting to Rs.27 crores was deposited in the         c
government treasury. It is, thus, submitted that there was no
defaulf on the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer or
the government and, hence, the acquisition proceedings have
not lapsed. Moreover, reliance is also placed on Section 114
of the 2013 Act and it is argued that the concluded land            0
acquisition proceedings are not at all affected by Section 24(2)
and the only right that survives to the landowners is to receive
compensation.

     8. 2013 Act puts in place entirely new regime for
compulsory acquisition of land and provides for new scheme          E
for compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the
affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed
to be acquired or affected by such acquisition.

     9. To turn, now, to the meaning of the expression              F
"compensation has not peen paid" in Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act and its effect on the subject acquisition, it is necessary to
refer to Section 24 which reads as follows:
    "24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in thIB Act, in
    any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under G
    the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, . ~
      (a}   Where no award under section 11 of the said Land
            Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions
                                                                    H
    790      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A                of this Act relating to the determination of
                 compensation shall apply; or

           (b)   Where an award under said section 11 has been
                 made, then such proceedings shall continue under
                 the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as
B
                 if the said Act has not been repealed.

          (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
c         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
D         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 holding has
E
          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."
F
       10. Insofar as sub-section (1) of Section 24 is concerned,
  it begins with non obstante clause. By this, Parliament-has
  given overriding effect to this provision over all other provisions
  of 2013 Act. It is provided in clause (a) that where the land
G acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act
  but no award under Section 11 is made, then the provisions of
  2013 Act shall apply relating to the determination of
  compensation. Clause (b) of Section 24(1) makes provision
  that where land acquisition proceedings have been initiated
H under the 1894 Act and award has been made under Section
  PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. HARAKCHAND 791
       MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [R.M. LODHA, J.] ·
 11, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions         A
 of the 1894 Act as if that Act has not been repealed.

        11. Section 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause.
  This provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1 ). Section
  24(2) enacts that in relation to the land acquisition proceedings
                                                                       8
  initiated under 1894 Act, where an award has been made five
  years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and
  either of the two contingencies is satisfied, viz; (i) physical
  possession of the land has not been taken or (ii) the
  compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings         C
  shall be deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of such
  acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate government still
  chooses to acquire the land which was the subject matter of
  acquisition under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the
  proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. The proviso appended
  to Section 24(2) deals with a situation where in respect of the      D
  acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act 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 the beneficiaries specified in Section 4
  notification become entitled to compensation under 2013 Act.         E

      12. To find out the meaning of the expression,
 "compensation has not been paid", it is necessary to have a
 look at Section 31 of the 1894 Act. The said Section, to the
 extent it is relevant, reads as follows:                              F

      "31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in
      Court. - (1) On making an award under section 11, the
      Collector shall tender payment of the compensation
      awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto
      according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless          G
      prevented by some one or more of the contingencies
      mentioned in the next sub-section.

      (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no
      person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any        H
    792              SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A         dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as
          to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the
          amount of the compensation in the Court to which a
          reference under section 18 would be submitted:
          )()()()(    )()()()(        )()()()(
B
      13. There is amendment in Maharashtra-Nagpur (City)
  in Section 31 whereby in sub-section (1 ), after the words
  "compensation" and in sub-section (2), after the words, "the
  amount of compensation", the words "and costs if any" have
C been inserted.

       14. Section 31 (1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon the
  Collector, on making an award under Section 11, to tender
  payment of compensation to persons interested entitled thereto
0 according to award. It further mandates the Collector to make
  payment of compensation to them unless prevented by one of
  the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2). The
  contingencies contemplated in Section 31 (2) are: (i) the
  persons interested entitled to compensation do not consent to
E receive it (ii) there is no person competent to alienate the land
  and (iii) there is dispute as to the title to receive compensation
  or as to the apportionment of it. If due to any of the
  contingencies contemplated in Section 31 (2), the Collector is
  prevented from making payment of compensation to the
  persons interested who are entitled to compensation, then the
F Collector is required to deposit the compensation in the court
  to which reference under Section 18 may be made.
       15. Simply put, Section 31 of the 1894 Act makes provision
  for payment of compensation or deposit of the same in the
G court. This provision requires that the Collector should tender
  payment of compensation as awarded by him to the persons
  interested who are entitled to compensation. If due to
  happening of any contingency as contemplated in Section
  31 (2), the compensation has not been paid, the Collector
H
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. HARAKCHAND 793
     MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [R.M. LODHA, J.]
should deposit the amount of compensation in the court to which       A
reference can be made under Section 18.

       16. The mandatory nature of the provision in Section 31(2)
with regard to deposit of the compensation in the court is further
fortified by the provisions contained in Sections 32, 33 and 34.      B
As a matter of fact, Section 33 gives power to the court, on an
application by a person interested or claiming an interest in
such money, to pass an order to invest the amount so
deposited in such government or other approved securities and
may direct the interest or other proceeds of any such investment      C
to be accumulated and paid in such manner as it may consider
proper so that the parties interested therein may have the
benefit therefrom as they might have had from the land in
respect whereof such money shall have been deposited or as
near thereto as may be.
                                                                      D
      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                    E
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 sub-section {sub-section (2) of
Section 24}. If a literal construction were to be given, then it
would amount to ignoring procedure, mode and manner of                F
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 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         G
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
                                                                      H
may be said to have been "paid" within the meaning of Section
     794       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2014) 1 S.C.R.


A 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.
B
        18. 1894 Act being an expropriatory legislation has to be
  strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner for payment
  of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections 31-34) of
  the 1894 Act. The Collector, with regard to the payment of
  compensation, can only act in the manner so provided. It is
C settled proposition of law (classic statement of Lord Roche in
  Nazir Ahmad1) that where a power is given to do a certain thing
  in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at
  all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.

D       19. Now, this is admitted position that award was made
  on 31.01.2008. Notices were issued to the landowners to
  receive the compensation and since they did not receive the
  compensation, the amount (Rs.27 crores) was deposited in the
  government treasury. Can it be said that deposit of the amount
E of compensation in the government treasury is equivalent to the
  amount of compensation paid to the landowners/persons
  interested? We do not think so. In a comparatively recent
  decision, this Court in Agnelo Santimano Fernandes, 2 relying
  upon the earlier decision in Prem Nath Kapur, 3 has held that
F the: deposit of the amount of the compensation in the state's
  revenue account is of no avail and the liability of the state to
  pay interest subsists till the amount has not been deposited in
  court·.

           20. From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining
G
    1.   Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor; (A.LR. 1936 Privy Council 253 (2)]
    2.   lvo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes and Others v. State of Goa and Another;
         120111 11 sec 506.
    3.   Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd; ((1996) 2 SCC
H        711
  PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. HARAKCHAND 795
       MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [RM. LODHA, J.]
  to the subject land has been made by the Special Land               A
  Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the
  commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that
  compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the
  landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court. The
  deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is        8
  of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to
  compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. We
  have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject land
  acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under
  Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
                                                                      c
        21. The argument on behalf of the Corporation that the
  subject land acquisition proceedings have been concluded in
  all respects under the 1894 Act and that they are not affected
  at all in view of Section 114(2) of the 2013 Act, has no merit at
  all, and is noted to be rejected. Section 114(1) of the 2013 Act    D
  repeals 1894 Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 114, however,
  makes Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable
  with regard to the effect of repeal but this is subject to the
- provisions in the 2013 Act. Under Section 24(2) land
  acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal      E
  fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been
  made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013
  Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation
  has not been paid. The legal fiction under Section 24(2) comes
  into operation as soon as conditions stated therein are             F
  satisfied. The applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses
  Act being subject to Section .24(2), there is no merit in the
  contention of the Corporation.
      22. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is not necessary
  to consider the correctness of the impugned judgment on             G
  merits.
       23. The appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as
  to costs.

  RP.                                        Appeals dismissed.       H