Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act’) is subject matter of interpretation before this Court. The said Section reads as under:

“24. Land Acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases – (1) xx xx

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act;

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

2. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5478 of 2014 titled ‘Union of India & others Vs. Shiv Raj & others’ [2014(2) Law Herald (SC) 1765 : 2014(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2398 (SC)] : decided on 07.05.2014 has interpreted Section 24(2) of the Act, including in the context of the cases where State could not take possession of the acquired land due to interim stay orders passed by Courts. It has been held that the benefits under the new law would be available in all the cases of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where award has not been made or possession of land has not been taken. Relying upon the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7027 of 2005 titled ‘S.D. Adarsh Bal Vidyalaya Vs. State of Haryana & another’ decided on 13.05.2014 has allowed a bunch of writ petitions filed by the land owners and the notifications as well as the award were set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the matter stands concluded by the order of the Supreme Court in Shiv Raj’s case (supra), which was followed by this Court in S.D. Adarsh Bal Vidyalaya’s case (supra), therefore, the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act.

4. However, on the other hand, it is argued that no argument was raised before the Supreme Court in Shiv Raj’s case (supra) that an act of the Court shall not prejudice any person. Relying upon the term ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’, it is argued that the period of stay granted by the Court(s) is required to be excluded while determining the period of five years, which leads to lapse of acquisition proceedings. Reference is made to a judgment reported as Atma Ram Mittal Vs. Ishwar Singh Punia (1988) 4 SCC 284, wherein it was held to the following effect:

“8. It is well settled that no man should suffer because of the fault of the court or delay in the procedure. Broom has stated the maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ – an act of court shall prejudice no man….”

5. A three Judges’ Bench in Auto & Metal Engineers Vs. Union of India (1997) 7 SCC 734 was examining the consequences of an order staying the passing of the final order of assessment to determine the period of limitation for issuance of a notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that since the passing of the final order of assessment had been stayed, it must be held that there was a stay of assessment proceedings for the purpose of Explanation I in Section 153. Therefore, the period during which the said stay order passed by the High Court was in operation has to be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for making the order