DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus KUSHAM JAIN AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 31-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 751 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
KUSHAM JAIN AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 8477 of2016) 
AUGUST 31, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R.F NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) -
Lapse of land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act - Deeming 
provision -Acquisition of respondent's land in 1986- Compensation 
not paid to the land owner but deposited in Court in December, 
2013 - Apparently, no case for contingency as contemplated u/s. 
31 (2) of the 1894,Act compelling the said deposit made out - Held: 
Such deposit in Court cannot be treated as a payment of 
compensation to land owners for the purpose of s.24(2) of the 2013 
Act - Payment of compensation/deposit in Court has to be made as 
per the provisions under the 1894 Act and in no other way - The 
payment/deposit admittedly having not been made in terms of the 
1894 Act, the deeming provision of lapse uls. 24(2) of the 2013 Act 
would operate - However, in peculiar/acts and circumstances of 
the case, appellant given a period of one year to initiate fresh steps 
for acquisition of the subject land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
s.31(2). 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: 1. In terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair 
F 
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, 
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in the event either 
the possession not being taken 5 years prior to 1.1.2014, or the 
compensation not paid to the land owners as on 1.1.2014, the 
acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. [Para 
5] [753-F] 
G 
2. The question of deposit in Court arises only in the event 
of a contingency as provided under Section 31(2) of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. There is no case for the appellant that 
any of the contingencies enumerated in Section 31(2) of Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 had arisen compelling the Land Acquisition 
H 
751 
752 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
Collector for depositing the amount of compensation in Court. 
What was deposited in Court in the year 2013 was the amount in 
terms of the Award passed in the year 1986, without any interest 
as provided under the Act for the intervening period. In any 
case, such deposit in Court which is not contemplated or permitted 
under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be treated as a payment 
of compensation to land owners for the purpose of Section 24(2) 
of the 2013 Act. The payment of compensation/deposit in court 
has to be made as per the provisions under the 1894 Act, and, in 
no other way. The payment or deposit having not admittedly 
been done in terms of the 1894 Act, the deeming provision on 
lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has to operate. 
[Paras 6, 7] [754-B, F-H; 755-A-B) 
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand 
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : 2014 
(1) SCR 783 - followed. 
Case Law Reference 
2014 (1) SCR 783 
followed 
Para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8477 
of2016. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.11.2014 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 4232 of2014. 
F 
G 
Amerendra Sharan, Sr, Adv., Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. 
Saharya, (For Mis. Saharya & Co.), Ms. Binu Tamta, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG., Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Ms. Atka 
Agrawal, Vijay Prakash, A. Deb Kumar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Ms. Soumya 
Ratore, Karan Seth, Rajesh Ranjan, D. S. Mahra, Kedar Nath Tripathy, 
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.11.2014 
passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4232 of 
20 I 4. The High Court has granted a declaration that the land acquisition 
H 
proceedings culminating in the Award dated 19.9.1986 in respect of I 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. KUSHAM JAIN AND 
ANOTHER [KURIAN, J.] 
bigha 4 biswas of land in Khasra No. 89/23/2 in village Palam, New 
Delhi has lapsed. At paragraph 2 of the judgment, the admitted position 
of non payment of compensation has been recorded by the High Court. 
Paragraph 2 of the judgment reads as under:-
"2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the 
said land was taken on 04.01.2002, the petitioner disputes this and 
maintains that physical possession has not been taken. However, 
. insofar as the issue of comp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.