Interim stay and Section 24(2) lapse period referred to larger bench for authoritative consideration

The effect of an interim stay on the period under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was considered unresolved, and the Court expressed doubt whether the stayed period should be excluded when determining lapse of acquisition proceedings. It noted that prior coordinate bench views treating the omission in Section 24(2) as conscious had been followed in several cases, but a three-judge bench had not answered this precise issue. Applying the principle that an act of court should not prejudice a party, the questions were referred for decision by a larger bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether the effect of an interim stay on the period prescribed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act required reconsideration, and whether the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applied to exclude the stayed period for determining lapse of acquisition proceedings.

Analysis: The order noted that the coordinate bench view treating the omission in Section 24(2) as conscious had been followed in several cases, but it expressed doubt about the legal effect of not excluding the period covered by an interim order. It also observed that a three-judge bench decision did not answer the precise question. Relying on the principle that an act of court should not prejudice a party, the matter was considered to need authoritative examination by a larger bench.

Conclusion: The questions framed on the applicability of Section 24(2) and the effect of interim stay were referred for decision by a larger bench.

---