https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355230 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). en-us Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355230 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). Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355230