Absence of simultaneous failure to take possession and pay compensation precludes deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2).

The petitioner sought a declaration that the acquisition of his property (Ward No. 7, House No. 7/4194, Surat, admeasuring 56.8569 sq. meters) by the Surat Municipal Corporation had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the "2013 Act")

The land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and an award was declared on 15.10.1991

The petitioner contended that as he remained in physical possession for over 27 years and the 2013 Act had since commenced, the proceedings were deemed to have lapsed

The matter was previously stayed pending the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

1. Whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act had lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to the alleged non-taking of physical possession

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the property from the acquisition proceedings

The court primarily applied Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which dictates the conditions under which old acquisition proceedings lapse

It relied heavily on the interpretation provided by the Constitution Bench in *Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [(2020) 8 SCC 129]*, which clarified that "possession" under the 1894 Act is legally affected by drawing a *Panchnama* (inquest report), and that Section 24(2) only applies to pending proceedings where there was total inaction (neither possession taken nor compensation paid) for five years prior to 01.01.2014

The Court observed that the acquisition proceedings reached a logical conclusion with the passing of the award in 1991

Under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, once an award is made, the land vests absolutely in the Government

Following *Indore Development Authority*, the Court reasoned that the 2013 Act’s lapse provision is a transitional tool for incomplete proceedings, not a means to reopen concluded cases

The Court noted that the petitioner’s claim of "physical possession" was insufficient to trigger a lapse, as the legal vesting of the land had already occurred upon the award; any continued occupation by the landowner is viewed as that of an unauthorized occupant/trespasser

Since the proceedings were concluded decades before the 2013 Act commenced, the "lethargy/inaction" contemplated by Section 24(2) did not apply

The Court concluded that once an award is declared and vesting occurs under the 1894 Act, the proceedings are finalized and cannot be revived or challenged under the guise of the new Act

No relief for the release of the property or stay on dispossession was granted