Land acquisition under Section 24(2): tendered compensation, stay exclusions, and Panchnama possession principles clarified

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was explained to mean that "paid" is distinct from "deposited"; compensation is treated as paid when it is tendered and made unconditionally available, and refusal by the landowner does not convert tender into non-payment. Deposit in court under section 31(2) of the 1894 Act is not included in "paid", although treasury or Collector deposit may operate as a valid mode for unclaimed compensation. The period during which acquisition proceedings were stayed by court order must be excluded when computing the five-year period, applying actus curiae neminem gravabit. Section 24 does not revive stale or barred claims, and Panchnama was recognised as a valid mode of taking physical possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "paid" in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act includes deposit in court under section 31(2) of the 1894 Act and whether refusal to accept compensation affects the consequence of lapse; (ii) whether section 24(2) requires exclusion of the period during which acquisition proceedings were stayed by court order and whether the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies; (iii) whether section 24 of the 2013 Act revives stale or barred claims; (iv) the accepted mode of taking physical possession under section 24(2).

Issue (i): Whether the expression "paid" in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act includes deposit in court under section 31(2) of the 1894 Act and whether refusal to accept compensation affects the consequence of lapse.

Analysis: The expressions "paid", "tender" and "deposited" were held to be distinct. Payment is complete when compensation is tendered and made unconditionally available; refusal by the landowner does not convert tender into non-payment. Deposit in court under section 31(2) is a different contingency and is not part of the expression "paid" in section 24(2). Deposit in treasury or with the Collector under the applicable rules was treated as a valid mode for unclaimed compensation. Non-deposit in court, by itself, does not cause lapse of acquisition.

Conclusion: The word "paid" in section 24(2) does not include deposit in court under section 31(2); refusal by the landowner does not help the claimant, and the acquisition does not lapse merely because the compensation was not deposited in court.

Issue (ii): Whether section 24(2) requires exclusion of the period during which acquisition proceedings were stayed by court order and whether the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies.

Analysis: The Court held that section 24(2) cannot be read to reward delay caused by interim or final court orders that disabled the authorities from proceeding. The principle that no litigant should suffer by the act of the court was applied, along with allied common law principles, to exclude the stay period while computing five years. The omission of an express exclusion in section 24(2) was treated as not altering that legal position.

Conclusion: The period covered by court-imposed restraint must be excluded, and actus curiae neminem gravabit applies.

Issue (iii): Whether section 24 of the 2013 Act revives stale or barred claims.

Analysis: The Court held that section 24 is not intended to reopen concluded acquisitions, revive dead claims, or unsettle matters that had already attained finality through earlier litigation or inaction over long periods. Delay and laches, constructive finality, and the bar against abuse of process were treated as controlling considerations.

Conclusion: Section 24 does not revive stale or barred claims.

Issue (iv): The accepted mode of taking physical possession under section 24(2).

Analysis: Taking possession by drawing a Panchnama in the presence of witnesses was treated as a legally accepted mode, particularly for large tracts or vacant land where actual manual possession is impracticable. Prior decisions accepting such mode were followed, and the contrary view requiring proof of actual physical occupation was rejected.

Conclusion: Drawing of Panchnama is the normal accepted mode of taking possession.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that compensation tendered and refused amounts to payment, treasury deposit does not by itself cause lapse, stay periods are excluded in computing the five-year period, stale claims are not revived, and possession may be validly taken by Panchnama; the acquisition challenges therefore fail to the extent indicated by the majority.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, "paid" means tendered and made unconditionally available, not deposit in court; court-imposed restraint must be excluded from the five-year computation; and section 24 cannot be used to revive concluded or stale acquisition disputes.

---