‘SYNOPSIS 8 The Petitioners are filing the ‘present Special Leave Petition '0 challenge the Judgment & Final Order dated 30.11.2018 Passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Dethi in Writ Patition (C) No. 4722 of 2014 where by and where under the Hon'ble Court in terms of Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (hereinafter referred to as "he "New Act’), relying upon the decisions of this Hon'ble Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harak Chand Mistrimal Solanki [2014 (3) SCC 183), Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu &Ors. (2014 (10) SCALE 388] and Union of india &Ors.vs Shiv Raj &Ors. [(20T4) 6 SCC 564], and on the judgments of the Hon'ble High Cous in Girish Chhabra Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi &Ors. {W.P. (C) No 2759/2014] and in Surender Singh Vs Union of India &Ors. (W.P (C) No. 2294/2014], allowed the Petition and held that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Old Act’) in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 571/20 measuring 1 Bighas 10 Biswas situated in Village Pehladpur Bangar, New Delhi, in which the Physical Possession has already taken by the Petitioner on 31.08.2005, that is belonging to the Petitioner is deemed to have lapsed. The Hon'ble High Court was of the view that since the ” Award was made on 12.07.2005, which is more than five years prior to the commencement of the New Act, and although theCc possession of the land has been taken but no compensation has been paid, the acquisition proceedings would lapse by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the New Act It is pertinent to mention herein that this Hon'ble Court, in recent judgment dated 08.02.2018, pronounced in Civil Appeal No. 20982 of 2017 titled as Indore Development Authority Vs Shailendra (Dead) LRS. & Ors., wherein this Hon'ble Court was pleased to over-rule majority of the judgments on which the Hon'ble High Court has relied upon while passing the impugned judgment, and held the case, which primarily relied upon, Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [2014 (3) SCC 183] as per incuriam. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the factual matrix of this instant petitidn afe entirely and squarely covered by the abovementioned judgment dated 08.02.2018 At the outset, it is submitted that SLP (C) No. 17207/2017 titled as Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Secretary Vs. Lalit Jain, dealing with a similar issue, is pending before this Hon'ble Court. It is relevant to point out’ that subsequent to the impugned judgment, the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement /Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 has been notified on 31.12.2014 which inserts @ proviso to Section 24 (2) to the effect that in computing the period referred to in sub-section 24 (2), any period during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up onD account of any stay orinjunetion issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation is lying deposited in a court or in any account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded Itis humbly submitted that the amendment clearly expresses the will of the Legislature in protecting the acquisitions proceeding. The legislative intent of the insertion of the proviso is clear in as much as the proviso is to be read in the nature of @ clarification as if it was always there. It is submitted that the amendment clearly protects the acquisitions where the possession has been taken but the compensation could not be paid. In the present case, passession of the land was already taken on 31.08.2005 and compensation is lying deposited in the account maintained for the said purpose by the department which is sufficient for the purpose of application of the amendment introduced through the Ordinance. The one of the reason because of which the department could not pay compensation to the landowner was due to interim stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in respect of a:large number of landowners whose lands were sought to be acquired under the same acquisition and who had chalienged the acquisition proceedings in the Hon'ble High Court.