Mere deposit of compensation awarded in Court does not means paid unless actually tendered to the persons interested

Unless and until the compensation is tendered to the persons interested, mere depositing of the compensation in the court would not be sufficient. 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.

Petitioners by way of present writ petition sought benefits of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) claiming that since more than five years have elapsed and no compensation has been awarded pursuant to proceedings under 1894 Act.
In response to plea that compensation/ award amount was deposited in the Court and since the plea of 5 years is not maintainable, it was held that unless and until the compensation is tendered to the persons interested, mere depositing of the compensation in the court would not be sufficient. 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 was an admitted position that the compensation amount was tendered in the court without first being offered to the persons interested (Petitioners) and in view of the clear dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation such deposit of compensation in Court cannot be regarded as a payment of compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Supreme Court in the said case had categorically held that for the purposes of Section 24(2), the compensation shall be regarded as “paid” if the compensation “has been offered” to the person interested and such compensation has been deposited in the court where a reference under Section 18 can be made on the happening of any of the contingencies contemplated under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act.

Since compensation in the instant case was not paid to the Petitioners and the award was already passed more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the subject acquisition as per the relevant award was held as deemed to have lapsed.

[Gyanender Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.]
(Delhi HC, 23.09.2014)