S.J. Vazifdar, J. - (1.)SOME of the issues that fall for consideration in these writ petitions are common. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of by this common order and judgment.
(2.)THERE are, we are informed, over a thousand similar petitions. We, however, decided to hear only three of them leaving it to the parties to obtain orders in the other petitions in accordance with the directions issued in this judgment. It was agreed before us that a finding on facts as to whether the proceedings have lapsed or not in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter called "the RFCT Act") ought not to be given in these writ petitions, but that, based on our finding on the various contentions, the authorities would decide each case on its own merits. To enable the authorities to do so the Government has set up High Level Committees by issuing a notification which we will refer to at the end. We have, therefore, decided the above petitions where the issues decided in this judgment arise. The parties may obtain appropriate orders from the other Benches as per the roster in accordance with this judgment.
(3.)THE main question in these petitions is whether the proceedings for the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as "the L.A. Act") have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the RFCT Act. The effect of an amendment by the addition of a second proviso to Section 24(2) also arises for consideration.
The respondents contended that the petitions are liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have not sought a declaration that the proceedings under the L.A. Act have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the RFCT Act. The respondents also contended that some of the petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act unsuccessfully right up to the Supreme Court. According to them, such petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to seek any reliefs in view of or in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(2) of the RFCT Act. We have not accepted either of these contentions.

The scope and interpretation of Section 24(2) itself falls for consideration in several respects. The first is whether the two contingencies mentioned therein operate independently or jointly. It is also necessary to consider as to when it can be said that physical possession of the land has not been taken. It is further necessary to consider as to when the compensation can be said not to have been paid. The respondents also contended that the period of five years mentioned in Section 24(2) of the RFCT Act must exclude the period during which the respondents were restrained by an order of a Court or Tribunal from taking any steps in furtherance of the acquisition proceedings. Lastly, the effect of the second proviso introduced by clause -6 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, falls for consideration. These issues regarding the scope and interpretation of Section 24(2) of the RFCT Act have been answered by the judgments of the Supreme Court in favour of the petitioners.

FACTS.

In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have sought similar reliefs. The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to act upon the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act in respect of their lands and an order restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession thereof. The reliefs are sought on the basis that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the RFCT Act. In CWP No. 2126 of 2015, the petitioners have, in the alternative, also sought a writ of certiorari quashing the notifications.

;