The interpretation of Section 24(2) clarified the conditions for lapsing of acquisition proceedings and emphasized that Section 24(2) does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Shanker Jha, C. J. - The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notifications dated 17.09.2004 and 27.10.2004 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Award dated 09.03.2006 in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and has also impugned the order dated 01.01.2017, vide which the claim of the petitioner under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 has been rejected by the respondents.

2. The controversy cropped up around interpretation of Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 was put at rest by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 thereby laying down principles for declaring the acquisition as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013. The Apex Court has discussed in detail all the aspects necessary and relevant for interpreting Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, and in this regard a reference is being made to the concluding paragraph of the judgment, which is reproduced herein 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 ofproceedings. 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shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of1894 as if it has not been repealed.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 for five 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 acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in Court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought Reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).

7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated und