The appellants, hereinabove denoted, have preferred three writ petitions, which were decided by the learned Single Judge vide common judgment and order dated 26.11.2014, whereby the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1132 of 2007 and Writ Petition (M/S) No.1129 of 2007 were dismissed and the Writ Petition (M/S) No.1128 of 2007 was allowed. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 26.11.2014, whereby the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1132 of 2007 and Writ Petition (M/S) No.1129 of 2007 were dismissed on the ground of maintainability, present Special Appeals have been preferred by the appellants.

2. Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1132 of 2007 and Writ Petition (M/S) No.1129 of 2007, gave the following reasons:

(a) Appellants/petitioners purchased the land in question on 08.02.2006 after gazette notification dated 07.02.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1894’), therefore, the appellants have no locus to challenge the validity of the land acquisition proceedings.

(b) The appellants had purchased the land in question on the following day of Section 4 gazette notification, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief in pursuance to present acquisition proceedings treating the date of gazette notification to be 07.02.2006 (final date).

3. Therefore, the following points for determination arise in the present Special Appeals:

(i) Whether the acquisition of land would lapse in view of Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’)?

(ii) Whether final date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 would be 21.02.2006?

(iii) Whether the appellants can be treated as subsequent purchasers when they purchased the disputed land on 08.02.2006 prior to publication of Section 4 notification in local newspaper?

4. The following points may be noted here:

(a) Award in the present case was passed on 02.09.2006 prior to commencement of the Act of 2013.

(b) Award was passed more than 5 years ago from commencement of the Act of 2013.

(c) The physical possession of the land in dispute was not taken prior to commencement of the Act of 2013, but the same was taken on 18.01.2015, after the dismissal of the writ petitions.

(d) No compensation has been paid nor deposited in the account of the appellants or their predecessors.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants contended that, as per Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, if an award was passed 5 years ago from the date of applicability of the Act of 2013 and till date possession has not been handed over, then said proceedings would lapse. According to the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, both the conditions have been fulfilled in the instant case and, therefore, land acquisition proceedings have been lapsed. He further contended that in original Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, there was no exclusion clause for non-computation of the period of stay order for the purpose of counting 5 years period; therefore, various High Courts gave judgments to the effect that the acquisition proceedings would lapse. Despite the fact that proceedings were stayed, the Central Government, in order to overcome this situation, decided to amend Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 alongwith certain other amendments. Therefore, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 was passed, which was applicable from 01.01.2015. Thereafter, the second Ordinance was passed, which was again lapsed. (Subsequent thereto, the third Ordinance was passed, but in the absence of replacing Act, the same was allowed to be lapsed). After the existing proviso, Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 was inserted in the Act of 2013 as follows:

“Provided further that in computing the period referred to in this