[Section 24 of Land Acquisition Act] Interim order period to be excluded while computing 5-year period: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the period for which interim order was operative, has to be excluded while computing the 5-year period under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act [Delhi Development Authority v. Rajan Sood and Ors.]..Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, in cases wherein Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act of 1894, if the award for compensation was made five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, but physical possession of the land has not been taken up or compensation is not paid to the land owner, then such a proceeding shall be deemed to have lapsed.A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench by Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal to hold that if there is any interim order which was passed in the land acquisition proceedings, then for the period of that interim order, the five year period mentioned under Section 24(2) of the Act shall not be operational."Therefore, in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra paragraph 366.8), the period, during which the interim order is/was operative, has to be excluded in the computation of five years’ period.".The respondents in the present case had filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court against the appellant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking a declaration that land acquisition proceedings initiated against the them under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 should be deemed to have lapsed in light of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The case of the respondent was that the possession of his land was with him and compensation had not been paid to him by the appellant. Therefore, the period of five year having expired, the proceedings under the Act shall be deemed to have lapsed. The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the land acquisition proceedings against the respondent is deemed to have lapsed. DDA then moved the Supreme Court in appeal. It was the contention of DDA that as there was an order of stay granted by the High Court in the year 2011, in the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioners and the High Court granted the interim order of taking no coercive action/order qua the land, therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority, the period under which the stay was operative has to be excluded..The top court noted that the Delhi High Court in its judgment placed reliance on the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and ors,which had been overruled by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Indore Development Authority case. .The appellant in the present case did not take possession of the property because of the order passed by the single-judge of the High Court in 2011 restraining the authority "from taking any coercive action in respect of the land in question." Therefore, even if it assumed that the respondents were in possession and the compensation was not tendered, the five-year period would not be deemed to have lapsed.Hence, land acquisition proceedings cannot be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, the Court ruled..The appeals were thus allowed and the judgment of the Delhi High Court was set aside. .Advocates Anshay Dhatwalia, Kumud Nijhwan and Ashwani Kumar appeared for the appellant.Senior Advocate Pinky Anand appeared along with Advocate-on-Record Amita Singh Kalkal for the respondents..[Read Judgment]