IMPORTANT POINTS
While u/s 11A of the 1894 Act acquisition proceedings for particular land lapses, u/s 24(2) of 2013Act entire proceeding lapse if either possession is not taken or compensation not paid within five years prior to 01.01.2014.
Land acquisition proceedings referred under Section 24(2) would include steps for taking physical possession of the land and payment of compensation.
Lapse u/s 24(2) being post-award it would affect only the land referred to in the award and not the entire lands covered by the Section 4(1) notification.
Where neither compensation is paid nor possession is taken after passing of award within five years prior to 01.01.2014 acquisition in respect of the particular land would lapse.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

Leave granted.

2. For the purpose of operation of Section 24(2) of the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”), whether the stay granted in one of the items covered by the very same Section 4(1) notification could have the effect on other lands covered by the same notification, is the short question involved in this appeal.

SHORT FACTS

3. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by publishing Section 4(1) notification under the 1894 Act on 04.03.2003. Section 6 declaration was duly published on 04.02.2004 and the award was passed under Section 11 on 03.02.2006. It is not in dispute that neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation paid within five years prior to the implementation of 2013 Act.

4. 2013 Act came into force into effect on 01.01.2014. The High Court rendered a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have elapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Thus aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.

5. It is the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that in view of the stay order granted by the High Court in respect of the adjoining land covered by the Section 4(1) notification dated 04.03.2003, the acquisition proceedings could not be completed within time. The benefit of the operation of stay should be extended to the entire lands covered by Section 4(1) notification and that such period should be excluded while computing the period of five years referred to under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. To buttress the point, the learned Counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Om Prakash v. Union of India and others, (2010) 4 SCC 17.

6. Om Prakash (supra) was a case where stay operated for certain lands notified under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act, and on account of such stay, the declarations under Section 6 were made after the prescribed period. However, in view of the Explanation under Section 6, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4(1) had been stayed by an order of the court, was liable to be excluded. It was held by this Court that the interim order of stay granted in some of the lands notified under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act would put a complete restraint to proceed with the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, meaning thereby, the benefit of that interim stay could be extended to the entire lands covered by Section 4(1) notification.

7. Paragraphs-70 to 72 in Om Prakash case (supra) have dealt with the issue and they are extracted herein below:

“70. Perusal of the opinion of the Full Bench in B.R. Gupta-I would clearly indicate with regard to interpretation of the word “any” in Explanation 1 to the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act which expands the scope of stay order granted in one case of landowners to be automatically extended to all those landowners, whose lands are covered under the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether there was any separate order of stay or not as regards their lands. The logic assigned by the Full Bench, the relevant portions whereof have been reproduced hereinabove, appear to be reasonable, apt, legal and proper.

71. It is also worth mentioning that each of the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act was composite in nature. The interim order of stay granted in one of the matters i.e. Munni Lal and confirmed subsequently have been reproduced hereinabove. We have also been given to understand that similar orders of stay were passed in many other petitions. Thus, in the teeth of such interim orders of stay, as reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that during the period of stay the respondents could not have proceeded further to issue declaration/notification under Section 6 of the Act. As soon as the interim stay came to be vacated by virtue of the main or