https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169630 Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law was construed according to its plain text, and no exclusion was read in for periods during which proceedings were stayed by court order. The Court held that, because the Act expressly provided stay exclusions in other provisions but not in Section 24(2), casus omissus could not be used to add one. Where the award under the 1894 Act was more than five years old at commencement of the 2013 Act and physical possession had not been taken, the acquisition lapsed; the proviso was treated as relating only to compensation. The proceedings were therefore held to have lapsed notwithstanding interim orders. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169630 Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law was construed according to its plain text, and no exclusion was read in for periods during which proceedings were stayed by court order. The Court held that, because the Act expressly provided stay exclusions in other provisions but not in Section 24(2), casus omissus could not be used to add one. Where the award under the 1894 Act was more than five years old at commencement of the 2013 Act and physical possession had not been taken, the acquisition lapsed; the proviso was treated as relating only to compensation. The proceedings were therefore held to have lapsed notwithstanding interim orders. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169630