Section 24(2) Lapse Inapplicable to Concluded Proceedings Where Possession Taken and Compensation Tendered Before 2013 Act.

The petitioners filed a writ petition in 2018 seeking a declaration that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had "deemed to have 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 award for the subject land was declared on October 10, 2012.

The respondent (GIDC) asserted that physical possession was taken via panchnama on January 10, 2013, and since the landowners did not collect the compensation despite notice, the amount was deposited in the Government Treasury on February 13, 2013.

During the pendency of the petition, the High Court had granted a status-quo order regarding the compensation deposit.

1. Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act given that the award and possession occurred prior to January 1, 2014.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the disbursement of the deposited compensation and the liberty to seek enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the 1894 Act.

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as interpreted by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.

Deemed lapse provisions cannot be invoked to revive concluded proceedings where the award was made and possession/payment steps were taken prior to the enforcement of the 2013 Act on January 1, 2014.

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding the redetermination of compensation based on other awards.

The Court noted that the critical events—the declaration of the award (2012), the taking of possession (2013), and the tendering/deposit of compensation (2013)—all occurred before the 2013 Act came into force.

Following the mandate in Indore Development Authority, the Court reasoned that the acquisition proceedings were finalized and could not be deemed lapsed.

The petitioners’ counsel eventually conceded the lapse issue in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Consequently, the Court found the acquisition valid but identified that the petitioners had not yet received the compensation due to the court’s own prior status-quo order.

The Court determined that the appropriate remedy was to direct the disbursement of the deposited funds upon verification of title.

The petitioners must file an application within two weeks, and the officer must verify their entitlement and remit payment within eight weeks thereafter; the Court declined to comment on the merits of a potential Section 28A application, leaving it to statutory provisions and all connected interim applications were disposed of.