Acquisition proceedings don't lapse when compensation deposited in Treasury despite landowner refusal under Section 24(2)

The SC addressed three questions regarding land acquisition compensation under the 2013 Act. First, the court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse when compensation is deposited in Treasury and landowners are notified, even if they refuse payment, though only interest applies if not deposited in court. The court disagreed with the Pune Municipal Corporation precedent and directed referral to a larger bench for reconsideration. Second, conscious omission in prior judgments does not affect legal position regarding interim order periods under Section 24(2). Third, the principle of actus curiae neminemgravabit applies to exclude interim stay periods when determining possession requirements under Section 24(2).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Meaning of the expression ‘paid’/‘tender’ in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) and Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act of 1894).
2. Mode of taking physical possession under Section 24(2) of the Act of 1894.
3. Revival of barred and stale claims under Section 24 of the Act of 2013.
4. Exclusion or inclusion of the period covered by an interim order of the Court for the purpose of determination of the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
5. Applicability of the principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” in the context of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Meaning of the expression ‘paid’/‘tender’ in Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and Section 31 of the Act of 1894:
- The Supreme Court clarified that the word ‘paid’ in Section 24 of the Act of 2013 has the same meaning as ‘tender of payment’ in Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894. The expressions ‘paid’ and ‘deposited’ are not interchangeable and carry different meanings.
- The Court held that non-deposit of compensation in court under Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 does not result in a lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The only consequence of non-deposit in court may be a higher rate of interest on compensation as envisaged under Section 34 of the Act of 1894.
- Once the compensation has been unconditionally tendered and refused, the obligation under Section 31(1) stands discharged, and this amounts to payment under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Claimants cannot take advantage of their refusal to accept compensation.

II. Mode of taking physical possession under Section 24(2) of the Act of 1894:
- The normal mode of taking physical possession in land acquisition cases is by drawing a Panchnama, as held in Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors. This method is considered sufficient to constitute taking of possession, especially when the land is vacant.

III. Revival of barred and stale claims under Section 24 of the Act of 2013:
- The provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 do not revive barred or stale claims. Such claims cannot be entertained, and the Act does not invalidate judgments/orders of courts where rights/claims have been lost or negatived.

IV. Exclusion or inclusion of the period covered by an interim order of the Court for the purpose of determination of the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013:
- The period covered by an interim order, which prevents authorities from taking possession, should be excluded from the period of five years as stipulated in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The absence of a specific provision for exclusion does not affect this interpretation, as there was no necessity to insert such a provision.

V. Applicability of the principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” in the context of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013:
- The principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” (an act of the court shall prejudice no man) is applicable. The period covered by the final/interim order by which the authorities have been deprived of taking possession has to be excluded. Section 24(2) has no application where the court has quashed the acquisition.

Separate Judgment Analysis:
- Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar agreed with the conclusions but differed on the aspect that Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, 2014 (3) SCC 183, was per incuriam. He emphasized that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation was not rendered per incuriam as it was not through lack of care or ignorance of certain important factors. He suggested referring the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.

Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court answered the referred questions, clarifying the interpretation of ‘paid’ and ‘tender’ in land acquisition laws, the mode of taking possession, the revival of stale claims, and the exclusion of periods covered by interim court orders. It also applied the principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” to ensure fair treatment in land acquisition cases.

---