RATTAN SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                  [2015] 13 S.C.R. 1221


                     RATIANSINGH                             A
                            v.
               UNION OF INDIAANDANR.
                        (I.A. N0.4
                                                             B
                            IN
              Civil Appeal No. 2851of2009)
                  DECEMBER 08, 2015
   [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]               C
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
s.24(2) -Applicability of- To the land acquired under Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - Held: The acquisition proceedings 0
shall be deemed to have lapsed, where passing of award is
established, the award predates the commencement of the
2013 Act by at least five years and possession is found not
to have been taken or compensation not paid, then s. 24(2)
would be applicable - In the present case, since the above E
requirements are made out, hence s. 24(2) comes into
operation in favour of landowners-Acquisition is deemed to
have lapsed - Authorities concerned may initiate fresh
acquisition proceedings in accordance with provisions of
2013Act.                                                    F

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.11 and 31-34 -
Compensation- Payment of- When complete- Held: Mode
and manner for payment of compensation are prescribed u/
ss.31-34 - The Collector can only act in the manner so G
provided- Thus compensation can be regarded as paid, if it
has literally been paid to the person interested or after being
offered to such person, has been deposited in the Court -
Deposit of the award in a Government Treasury would not
amount to compensation being paid to the person interested. H
                           1221
1222       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 13 S.C.R.


 A        Allowing the appeals, the Court

        HELD: 1. Any determination under Section 24(2)
   of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
   Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
 B must proceed sequentially. First, the factum of an Award
   under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must
   be clearly established. The said Award must predate the
   commencement of the Act, i.e., 1.1.2014, by at least five
   years, i.e., the Award must have been passed on or
 C before 1.1.2009. This having been established, if
   possession is found to not have been taken, or
   compensation not paid, then the proceedings shall be
   deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate
   Government, if it so chooses, may reinitiate acquisition
 D proceedings in respect of the same land, but under the
   regime of the 2013 Act. [Para 1] [1225-C-E]

         2. The procedure, mode and manner for payment
   of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections 31-
 E 34) of the 1894Act. Section 31(1) of the 1894Act, which
   enjoins the Collector, on making an Award under Section
   11, to tender payment of compensation to persons
   interested entitled thereto. Section 31 mandates the
   Collector to make payment of compensation to such
 F persons unless prevented by one of the contingencies
   contemplated in sub-section (2), namely (i) the persons
   interested entitled to compensation do not consent to
   receive it, (ii) there is no person competent to alienate
   the land, and (iii) there is dispute as to the title to receive
 G compensation or as to the apportionment of it. If due to
   any of these contingencies, the Collector is prevented
   from making payment of compensation to the persons
   entitled to compensation, the Collector is required to
   deposit the compensation in the Court to which
 H
     RATTAN SINGH v. UNION OF INDIAANDANR.                 1223


reference under Section 18 may be made. The Collector, A
with regard to the payment of compensation, can only
act in the manner so provided. Thus compensation can
be regarded as "paid" if the compensation has literally
been paid to the person interested, or after being offered
to such person, it has been deposited in the Court. The B
deposit of the Award in a Government Treasury would
not amount to compensation being paid to the person
interested. In the present case, compensation was
neither paid to the Appellants nor deposited in the
appropriate Court. The retention of it by the Land C
Acquisition Collector till such time as the Appellants
made applications for it would not amount to
compensation being paid to them. [Paras 4, 5] [1227-E-
H; 1228-A; 1230-E]
                                                           D
      Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand
      Misirimal Solanki 2014 (1) SCR 783 : (2014) 3
      SCC 183; Union of India v. Shiv Raj2014 (8) SCR
      751 : (2014) 6 SCC 564; Bimla Devi vs. State of
      Haryana (2014) 6 SCC 583; Competent                  E
      Automobiles Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India AIR 2015
      SC 3186; Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. v. Union of
      India (2015) 8 SCC 544; Rajiv Chaudhari HUF
      vs. Union of India (2015) 3 SCC 541; /VO Agne/a
                                                           F
      Santimano Fernandes v. State of Goa 2011 (2)
      SCR 1142: (2011) 11SCC506; Prem Nath Kapur
      v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd.
      1995 (5) Suppl. scR 790 : (1996) 2 sec 11 -
      relied on.
                                                           G
     3. Thus, in the present case, since ~he Award
predated the commencement of the 2013 Act by well over
five years and compensation has not paid to the
Appellants, Section 24(2) comes into operation in favour
                                                            H
1224         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 13 S.C.R.


 A     of the Appellants. The acquisition is deemed to have
       lapsed in these circumstances. The Respondent may
       initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with
       the provisions of the 2013 Act, if it so wishes. [Para 6]
       [1230-G-H; 1231-A]
 8
                          Case Law Reference
       2014 (1) SCR 783                  relied on          Para 4
       2014 (8) SCR 751                  relied on          Para 4
 c (2014) 6 sec 583                      relied on          Para4
       AIR 2015 SC 3186                  relied on          Para 4
       (2015) 8 sec 544                  relied on          Para 4
       (2015) 3 sec 541                  relied on          Para 4
 D
       2011 (2) SCR 1142                 relied on          Para 5
       1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 790.          relied on          Para 5
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 4 of 2015
 E in Civil Appeal No. 2851 of2009.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2005 of the
       High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No. 7839 of
       1999 and against the final judgment and order dated
       28.04.2006 in Review Petition No. 82 of 2006 in Writ Petition
 F     (C) No. 7839of1999.
                                  WITH
            I. A. No. 5 in Civil Appeal No. 2852 of 2009.
 G           Vikas Mehta, Karandeep Khanna, Varun Singh, Advs.
       for the Appellant.

        Tushar Mehta, ASG, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Vishnu 8.
   Saharya, Viresh 8. Saharya, M/s. Saharya & Co., Advs. for
 H the Respondents.
      RATTAN SINGH v. UNION OF INDIAAND ANR.                      1225


     The judgment of the Court was delivered by                   A

        VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. These Appeals were admitted
before the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity '2013 Act'). Upon B
commencement thereof, the Appellants have changed the tack
of their challenge by seeking to invoke the deemed lapse of
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the.2013Act. As we have
repeatedly opined, any determination under this Section must
proceed sequentially. First, the factum of an Award under C
Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be clearly
established. The said Award ·must predate the
commencement of the Act, i.e., 1.1.2014, by atleastfive years,
i.e., the Award must have been passed on or before 1.1.2009.
This having been established, if possession is found to not D
have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the
proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, may reinitiate
acquisition proceedings in respect of the same land, but under
the regime of the 2013Act.                                     E

       2. In the matter before us, a Section 4 Notification was
issued on 13.11.1959, followed by a Section 6 Declaration on
12.7.1966. An Award was finally passed on 24.6.1968. The
first requirement is thus made out. The possession of the land     F
appears to be in dispute, as the Appellants allege that mere
paper possession has been taken by the Respondent, while
the Respondent alleges that possession was taken on
18.1.2000. Sagaciously, learned Counsel for the Appellants
has steered away from this controversy. Instead, the Appellants   G
allege that compensation has not been paid to them as is
evident from the affidavit of the Respondent where it has
asseverated thus:

                                                                  H
1226      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 13 S.C.R.


 A        "That the procedure adopted for payment of
          compensation is that after announcement of the Award,
          the land owner makes an application before the Land
          Acquisition Collector for payment of compensation
          awarded to him under the Award by submitting the
 B        documents showing his title to the land. The land owner
          is also required to execute a surety bond before
          receiving the payment of compensation. The aforesaid
          procedure was adopted by other land owners of this
          acquisition for whom different Awards were passed."
 c

          "Contents of para (11) are not correct in the manner they
          have been stated. The possession of the land was taken
 D        on 18.01.2000 after announcement of the Award. It is
          submitted that the Appellant had filed his claim in
          pursuance of notice issued under Sections 9 and 10 of
          the Land Acquisition Act and had participated in the
          acquisition proceedings. The Appellant was even
 E        present when the Award was announced and yet he did
          not take any steps to receive compensation. He neither
          filed any application nor presented his document to show
          his title on the land. These are the steps required to be
          taken by the land owners to receive compensation. The
 F        other owners of the land, which was acquired under the
          same Notification, had filed the appropriate application
          and submitted the documents showing their title and
          also filed surety bond before receiving compensation.
          When the Appellant himself did not come forward to
 G        receive the compensation, the authorities cannot be
          faulted with for non-payment of compensation".

         3. The Respondent, on the other hand, has sought to
   contend that the procedure for payment of compensation is
 H that after the announcement of the Award, the land owners
      RATTAN SINGH v. UNION OF INDIAANDANR.                       1227
                [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

make applications before the Land Acquisition Collector for       A
payment of compensation by submitting documents showing
their title to the land and by executing a surety bond. This
procedure was followed by other land owners who then
received the compensation due to them. Since the Appellants
chose not to comply with this procedure, it cannot be said that   B
the compensation was not paid to them.

       4. This Court has, in a number of decisions including (1)
Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183, (2) Union of India vs. Shiv Raj C
(2014) 6 SCC 564, (3) Simla Devi vs. State of Haryana (2014)
6 SCC 583, (4) CompetentAutomobiles Co. Ltd. vs. Union of
India AIR 2015 SC 3186, (5) Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. vs.
Union of India (2015) 8 SCC 544 and (6) Raj iv Chaudhari HUF
vs. Union of India (2015) 3 sec 541, elucidated the manner D
in which Section 24(2) is to be interpreted. In Pune Municipal
Corporation, a three Judge Bench of this Court (which should
bind all lesser as well as coordinate Benches) clarified the
meaning of the expression "compensation has not been paid".
It discussed Section 31 (1) of the 1894 Act, which enjoins the E
Collector, on making an Award under Section 11, to tender
payment of compensation to persons interested entitled
thereto. Section 31 mandates the Collector to make payment
of compensation to such persons unless prevented by one of
the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2), namely (i) F
the persons interested entitled to compensation do not consent
to 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 G
these contingencies the Collector is prevented from making
payment of compensation to the persons entitled to
compensation, the Collector is required to deposit the
compensation in the Court to which reference under Section
18 may be made. Thus compensation can be regarded as H
1228         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 13 S.C.R.


 A     "paid" if the compensation has literally been paid to the person
       interested, or after being offered to such person, it has been
       deposited in the Court. The deposit of the Award in a
       GovernmentTreasurywould notamounttocompensation being
       paid to the person interested. In order to send the matter to
 B     rest, since the same arguments are being regurgitated without
       end, the following paras from Pune Municipal Corporation
       are extracted:

             "14. Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon the
 c           Collector, on making an award under Section 11, to
             tender payment of compensation to persons interested
             entitled thereto according to award. It further mandates
             the Collector to make payment of compensation to them
             unless prevented by one of the contingencies
 D           contemplated in sub-section (2). The contingencies
             contemplated in Section 31 (2) are: (i) the persons
             interested entitled to compensation do not consent to
             receive it, (ii) there is. no person competent to alienate
             the land, and (iii) there is dispute as to the title to receive
 E           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 Collector is required to
 F
             deposit the compensation in the court to which
             reference under Section 18 may be made.

             16. The mandatory nature of the provision in Section
             31 (2) with regard to deposit of the compensation in the
 G           court is further fortified by the provisions contained
             in Sections 32, 33 and 34. 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
 H
RATTAN SINGH v. UNION OF INDIAANDANR.                      1229
          [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

such Government or other approved securities and may       A
direct the interest or other proceeds of any such
investment 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       B
shall have been deposited or as near thereto as may
be.

17. While enacting Section 24(2), Parliament definitely
had in its view Section 31 of the 1894 Act. From that C
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 D
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 deposit provided in Section 31 (2) of the E
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 F
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 G
the contingencies contemplated under Section 31 (2) of
the 1894Act. 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 H
1230       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 13 S.C.R.


 A         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.

           18. The 1894 Act being an expropriatory legislation has
 B         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 settled proposition of law
 C         (classic statement of Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad) 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
         5. This Court in IVO Agnelo Santimano Fernandes vs.
   State of Goa (2011) 11 SCC 506, relying upon the earlier
   decision in Prem Nath Kapur vs. National Fertilizers
   Corporation of India Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 71, had held that the
 E 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.

 F       6. In the current Appeals, compensation was neither paid
   to the Appellants nor deposited in the appropriate Court. The
   retention of it by the Land Acquisition Collector till such time
   as the Appellants made applications for it would not amount to
   compensation being paid to them. The contention of the
 G Respondent is thus entirely erroneous. Since the Award
   predated the commencement of the 2013 Act by well over five
   years and compensation has not paid to the Appellants,
   Section 24(2) comes into operation in favour of the Appellants.
   Whether possession was taken by the Respondent need not
 H be dilated upon nor need it detain us any further. The
       RATIAN SINGH v. UNION OF INDIAANDANR.                         1231 ·
                 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

acquisition is deemed to have lapsed in these circumstances.          A
The Respondent may initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013Act, if it so wishes.

      7. In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to consider
the correctness of the impugned Judgment on merits. These             B
Appeals are allowed with no orders as to costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy                               Appeals allowed.