RCK DEVELOPERS P LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking the benefit 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') which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') and in respect of which Award No. 15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1319/1, 1319/2, 1318, 1055, 951/1 and 951/2 measuring 12 bighas and 6 biswas in all situated in village Chattarpur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

(2.) It is an admitted position that physical possession of the subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that it has not received any compensation. The learned counsel for the respondents however states that insofar as khasra number 951/1 is concerned, the compensation was deposited in court pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in C.M. (Main) 1401/2013 passed on 30.12.3013. As regards the other khasra numbers no compensation has admittedly been paid to the petitioner.

(3.) The question of payment of 'compensation' by depositing the same in court has been settled by a decision of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. WPC 1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014, wherein this court held that unless and until the compensation was tendered to the person interested, mere deposit of the compensation in court would not be sufficient. The compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount that was tendered in respect of one khasra number was done only in this court in C.M. (Main) 1401/2013 without first being offered to the petitioner herein. Therefore, following the decision in Gyanender Singh the same cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioner.