2016 (1) TMI 1511 - SCH - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Seeks Clarification: Larger Bench to Decide on Excluding Interim Periods in Land Acquisition Cases.

The SC directed the Registry to refer the matter to the CJI for appropriate orders, highlighting the necessity for a larger bench to address the exclusion ... Challenge to order of the High Court upholding the acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - applicability of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - whether in view of the fact that the possession had not been taken over despite the award being passed five years prior to 1st January, 2014 the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed? - HELD THAT:- The legal effect of the absence of any specific exclusion of the period covered by an interim order in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act requires serious reconsideration having regard to the fact that it is an established principle of law that the act of the court cannot be understood to cause prejudice to any of the contesting parties in a litigation which is expressed in the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit”. The following two questions of law, would specifically require an authoritative pronouncement for an appropriate adjudication on the factual controversy arising in the present case and in a large number of connected cases: (i) Whether the conscious omission referred to in paragraph 11 of the judgment in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra) makes any substantial difference to the legal position with regard to the 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 2013 Act? (ii) Whether the principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit”, namely act of the court should not prejudice any parties would be applicable in the present case to exclude the period covered by an interim order for the purpose of determining the question with regard to taking of possession as contemplated in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? The Registry of this Court is directed to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Issues:Challenge to High Court order upholding acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act regarding lapsed land acquisition proceedings due to possession not taken over; Interpretation of legislative omission in Section 24(2) regarding exclusion of interim order period; Need for larger bench consideration on exclusion of interim order period under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.Analysis:1. The petitioners challenged the High Court's order upholding the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, raising the issue of whether the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to possession not being taken over despite the award being passed five years prior to 1st January, 2014. The petitioners had benefited from interim orders preventing possession by the State. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition(s) upholding the acquisition.2. A decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association case clarified that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not exclude periods of stay granted by a court. The legislative intent was deemed clear, and the court cannot fill such omissions. Similar rectifications in the Land Acquisition Act were noted. The decision was followed in various cases, and the Union of India case was also considered.3. The court noted the need for a larger bench to reconsider the exclusion of the period covered by interim orders under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The principle of 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court should not prejudice any party) was highlighted. Two questions were posed for authoritative pronouncement, emphasizing the need for clarity on the legal position regarding exclusion or inclusion of the interim order period.4. The court directed the Registry to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders, as a larger bench's consideration was deemed necessary to address the questions raised. The court refrained from delving into other issues raised by the petitioners, leaving them open for future consideration if required.