The petition under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 must meet the gap period of five years, and the physical possession and compensation tender must be valid. The essentiality of the land for public purpose and the bar of delay and res judicata are crucial considerations.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Shanker Jha, C.J. - Shorn of unnecessary details, the issue involved in the instant writ petition is whether the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioner have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. Before entering into the respective pleadings by the parties, it needs necessary mention that owing to the pendency of interpretation of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the petition including the present one wherein the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was sought to be invoked, were kept pending; awaiting the outcome of the issue at hand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. After seeing various interpretations, the controversy erupted was finally set at rest by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal cited as AIR 2020 SC 1496. The penultimate para of the judgment 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 of Act of2013.

2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five 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shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.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 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 under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest repo