9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod 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 pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ) and 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. It may be taken note of at this stage that the petitioners had been the beneficiaries of the interim order of the High Court as well as this Court on account of which possession of the acquired land could not be taken over by the State. It has also to be noted that the order of the High Court had upheld the acquisition in question and the writ petition(s) was dismissed. 2. The matter appears to have been settled by a decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association Versus State of Tamil Nadu and others [(2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of 1984 to add Explanation I for the purpose of excluding the period when the proceeding suffered stay by an order of the court, in the context of limitation provided for publishing the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. To a similar effect was the Explanation to Section 11-A which was added by Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Clearly the legislature has, in its wisdom, made the period of five years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act absolute and unaffected by any delay in the proceedings on account of any order of stay by a court. The plain wordings used by the legislature are clear and do not create any ambiguity or conflict. In such a situation, the court is not required to depart from the literal rule of interpretation. 3. A consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Insofar as the decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra) is concerned, having read and considered paragraphs 11 and 12 thereof, as extracted above, it is our considered view 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 . We accordingly take the view that the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
