2018 (2) TMI 651 - SUPREME COURT

Interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Whether a deposit in the Treasury or with the Collector amounts to a payment of compensation under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 especially when the landowners have refused to accept compensation? - Held that:- Question No. 1 may be referred to a larger bench. The acquisition proceedings do not lapse if the amount is deposited in the Treasury and such fact is made known to the claimants by the competent authority as required in law. Only interest is attracted, in case if the deposit is not made in Court. Consequently, unable to persuade myself to agree with the outcome of Pune Municipal Corporation (2014 (1) TMI 1643 - Supreme Court Of India). However, according to me the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (2014 (1) TMI 1643 - Supreme Court Of India) is not rendered in per incuriam.

In view of the above, the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) may have to be reconsidered by a larger bench, inasmuch as Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was decided by a bench of three judges. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Whether the conscious omission referred to in paragraph 11 of the judgment in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014 (9) TMI 941 - Supreme Court Of India) makes any substantial difference to the legal position with regard to the exclusion or inclusion of the period covered by an interim order of the Court for the purpose of determination of the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? - Held that:- The conscious omission referred to in paragraph 11 of the judgment in Sree Balaji (supra) does not make any substantial difference to the legal position with regard to the exclusion or inclusion of the period covered by an interim order of the Court for the purpose of determination of the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. In fact, excluding such periods of interim stay from the calculation of the time period of five years under S. 24(2) makes a reading of the Act more consistent.

Whether the principle of “actus curiae neminemgravabit”, namely act of the court should not prejudice any parties would be applicable in the present case to exclude the period covered by an interim order for the purpose of determining the question with regard to taking of possession as contemplated in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? - Held that:- The principle of “actus curiae neminemgravabit”, or that the act of the court should not prejudice any parties, would be applicable in the present case to exclude the period covered by an interim order for the purpose of determining the question with regard to taking of possession as contemplated in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.