1. The Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that the land acquisition has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act,2013 (for short "2013 Act"). The Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

1986 kindly be stayed.

d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the above said Petition the respondents, their agents, their representatives, their servants or anybody claiming through them be restrained by an order of temporary injunction to from taking any steps in respect of the suit property.

deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;"

3 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:52:29 ::: pvr 4 WP9849-14.doc-11 2006. Being aggrieved by this decision, Shivaji Kisan Jagtap approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.110 of 2007 interalia praying for a direction that the application filed under Section 48(1) be decided afresh. There is no dispute that the prayer clause in the said petition also included the Petitioners' land. By an ad-interim order dated 8 January 2007 a Division Bench of this Court directed that the parties to maintain 'status quo', in respect of the petition lands. Thereafter, by an order dated 3 December 2007 the said Writ Petition was admitted and the ad-interim order of status quo was continued during the pendency of the Petition. The Writ Petition is pending final hearing and as such the status quo order is in operation as on date. The Petitioners' have also filed some interim applications in the said Writ Petition seeking intervention and have also prayed for deleting the Petitioners' land from the said petition as also a prayer is made for allotment of 12.5% returnable land. The Petitioners have averred that in the said application, the Petitioners inadvertently pleaded that the possession has been delivered by letter dated 2 July 1999. The Petitioners also referred to a letter dated 7 August 2001 wherein the Petitioners have stated that the possession is taken on 12 July 1999 and clarified that in fact on 12 July 1999 the Petitioners' statement is recorded that the Petitioners are ready and willing to hand over the possession. The case of the Petitioners is that the statement made in that application was in the light of allotment of 12.5% land and in fact the possession was never delivered. It is averred that in any case because of the status quo orders passed in Writ Petition No.110 of 2007, the possession of the land could not 4 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:52:29 ::: pvr 5 WP9849-14.doc-11 have been taken by the Respondents unless the said orders were to be vacated. The Petitioners therefore have averred that in view of the orders of status-quo, the possession of the land has continued with the Petitioners.

5. The Petitioners refer to two letters dated 1 October 2014 addressed by Respondent No.1-the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In one of the letters, Respondent No.1 states that due to certain encroachments and on account of the pending writ petition, the possession of the land was not taken by the Respondent. In the second letter Respondent No.1 clarified that the compensation payable in respect of survey No.4/12 (Petitioners' land) of Rs.51,243.30 ps has been deposited in the treasury.

6. It is thus the case of the Petitioners that neither the possession of the land is taken under the said Award nor the amount of compensation has been paid to the Petitioners. The Petitioners therefore contend that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has become applicable, and by operation of law as both the ingredients namely of possession being not taken and the amount of compensation being not paid, and the fact that the Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was made five years or more, prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, has resulted into the land acquisition, being deemed to have lapsed, by virtue of the said provisions. The Petitioners in support of this submission have relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.

7. We may observe that this petition though filed on 14 October 2014, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5, though have entered appearance, have chosen not to file any reply affidavit. However, Respondent No.4-Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority which is the beneficiary of the acquisition, has filed an affidavit of opposition. The affidavit inter alia justifies the land acquisition to be in public interest. Relying on the order of status-quo dated 8 January 2007 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.110 of 2007 which is continued by the subsequent orders, the contention is that the possession of the acquired land could not be taken by the Land Acquisition Officer and handed over to Respondent No.4, for the purposes of the new township of Pimpri Chinchwad. It is therefore submitted that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would have no application, as the physical possession of the land could not be taken, though the Awards have been passed much prior to commencement of the 2013 Act, only on account of the status-quo orders passed by this Court.

8. As regards the second issue about payment of compensation, it is submitted that the compensation was deposited on 5 December 1985 by Respondent No.4 with the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the lands covered under the subject Award dated 23 September 1986. It is, therefore, contended that as 1 2014(3) SCC 183 6 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:52:29 ::: pvr 7 WP9849-14.doc-11 Respondent No.4 has deposited the said amount with the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would not be applicable. In support of the submissions, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 has placed reliance on an order dated 12 January 2016 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of " Yogesh Neema & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. " in Special Leave Petition (C) No.10742 of 2008 to contend that as regards the counting of period covered by the interim orders, for the purpose of application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the issue has been referred for consideration of the larger bench.

9. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the pleadings as filed by the respective parties who are before us. There is no dispute that on 3 September 1970 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued and thereafter, on 12 September 1972 a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued. There is also no dispute that the award in question, under which the land of the petitioners was acquired, was passed on 28 September 1986. The Petitioners contend that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed on both the counts as provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act namely on the possession of the land being not taken by the Respondents as also the compensation having been not paid to the Petitioners under the Award, which admittedly came to be passed five or more years prior to coming into force the 2013 Act.

10. As regards the first issue namely possession having been not taken by the Respondents and on that count the acquisition would lapse under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the case of the Respondents is that they were prevented from taking possession in view of the status quo order dated 8 January 2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.110 of 2007 preferred by Shivaji Kisan Jagtap and others. There is no dispute that the order of status quo as passed by this Court was applicable to the Petitioners' land. As noted above, the said Writ Petition was preferred by some of the land owners whose lands were also subject matter of the same acquisition proceedings and who had challenged an order whereby their applications under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for withdrawal of these lands from acquisition was rejected. Even assuming that the Respondents are correct in contending that after the status-quo order dated 8 January 2007 and which was continued till date, they could not take possession of the land, however, the fact remains that the Award itself is of the year 1985 and the status-quo order came to be passed in the year 2007 which is almost after 22 years from the date of the Award. There is nothing placed on record to show that any attempt was made on the part of the Respondents to take possession. Be that as it may, the issue of possession need not detain us any further inasmuch as the alternate issue as envisaged under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is also raised by the Petitioners to contend that the acquisition has lapsed which we consider below.

11. In regard to the second issue of non-payment of 8 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:52:29 ::: pvr 9 WP9849-14.doc-11 compensation, we find that the Petitioners had made a representation to the authorities demanding payment of compensation as noted above. There is nothing on record as placed on behalf of the State to show that the compensation has been paid to the Petitioners. Moreover, Respondent No.4 in the affidavit has stated that the amount of compensation has been deposited by Respondent No.4 with S.L.A.O. in respect of the lands covered under the award in question on 5 December 1985. If this be the position then in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., as also as held by the Division Bench of this Court in "Shri. Bapuso Narayan Kulkarni (deceased) through Lrs and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. "2 and as held by this Bench in "Santosh Dnyaneshwar Aher Vs. State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Ors." (Writ Petition No.3238 of 2015 decided on 17 January 2017) it can be taken to be a clear position in law that mere deposit of amount in the account of Special Land Acquisition Officer would not amount to payment of compensation to the Petitioners. This Petition therefore would succeed on the ground of non payment of compensation to the Petitioner being one of the requirements for lapse of the acquisition proceedings as sub- section 2 of Section 24 would provide.

12. As regards the contention as urged on behalf of Respondent No.4 that the order dated 12 January 2016 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition(C) No.10742 of 2008 2 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 384 9 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:52:29 ::: pvr 10 WP9849-14.doc-11 ( Yogesh Neema & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. ), would not only be relevant in the context of the issue of possession but also in the context of payment of compensation. We do not agree. The said order of the Supreme Court in paragraph (1) records about the issue which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court, which is in the context of possession having been not taken over despite the Award being passed prior to five years from 1 January 2014 and the effect of the interim order of the High Court, on account of which possession of the acquired land could not be taken over by the State. The observations in that regard are clear and can be found in paragraph (1) of the order which read thus:-

It is in this context that their Lordships considered the decision in the case of "Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors."3 more particularly paragraphs 11 and 12 therein, and 3(2015) 3 SCC 353 10 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:52:29 ::: pvr 11 WP9849-14.doc-11 made the following observations in paragraphs 3 and 4 to referring the questions as framed therein for consideration of the larger bench:-

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 question should receive the attention and consideration of a larger bench of this Court. The following two questions of law, according to us, would specifically require an authoritative pronouncement 11 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:52:29 ::: pvr 12 WP9849-14.doc-11 for an appropriate adjudication on the factual controversy arising in the present case and in a large number of connected cases:

(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?"

12 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:52:29 ::: pvr 13 WP9849-14.doc-11 that the Respondents be restrained by an order and injunction from disturbing and/or from dispossessing the peaceful possession of the Petitioners in respect of the land in question. Considering this specific prayer, the status-quo order as passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.110 of 2007 is required to be read only qua the possession of the land in question. There cannot be any other reading much less to read the status-quo order qua the respondents being restrained from depositing the compensation in the Civil Court, as law would require.

14. In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the Petitioners that the acquisition has lapsed under the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act on account of non payment of compensation, is required to be accepted. We accordingly allow this petition by the following order:-

13 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:52:29 ::: pvr 14 WP9849-14.doc-11

(ii) We also make it clear that the acquisition would stand lapsed only in relation to the lands subject matter of this Petition and no adjudication is made as regards the legality and validity of the acquisition of other lands which are subject matter of the aforesaid two Awards;

(iii) This Judgment and Order will not preclude the Respondents from initiating a fresh acquisition proceeding in respect of the acquired lands under the provisions of the said Act of 2013.

(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.