The main legal point established in the judgment is that for lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and payment of compensation must not be fulfilled.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Shanker Jha, C. J. - The instant petition has been filed claiming that the acquisition proceedings carried out vide the notifications issued under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 20.04.1990 and 18.04.1991 respectively; followed by the award dated 23.03.1993, thereby acquiring the land for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land as Residential, Commercial, Institutional area, recreational zone and open space in Sector 44, 45 and 46, Gurugram; qua the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No. 23//23/1 measuring 2100 sq. yards situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Kanhai, Tehsil and District Gurugram; 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, 'the Act of 2013'). Though the prayer in the petition is only limited to lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, however, in the petition the petitioners have placed reliance on order dated 18.12.2002, 26.06.2012, 22.08.2012 to demonstrate that the respondents are discriminating with the petitioners as they have released the land of the other land owners after passing of the award.

2. Owing to the controversy erupted as regards the interpretation of the provision of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, like many other writ petitions, the proceedings in the instant petition were kept in abeyance awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court. The controversy was finally put at rest by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 penultimate paragraph of which is reproduced here in below:-

'....1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions ofAct of2013.

2. In case the award has been passed within the window period offive years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.

3. The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities forfive years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that