Gujarat High Court
Jitendra Ambalal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 1 December, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2956 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
JITENDRA AMBALAL PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
Page 1 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"A. By issuing suitable appropriate writ, order or direction, be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Award dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure-A) passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 2009 by the Respondent No. 3 and the subsequent order dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure-B) and communications dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure-C) issued thereafter, and also be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-N) passed by the Respondent No.
3 and in the alternative, since there was already a proposal for releasing the lands for these much period, the lands of the Petitioners situated at Village: Lifri, Taluka: Nakhatrana, District: Kutch as per the detains mentioned herein above, be released by the Respondents or in the alternative, the Respondents be directed to determine the amount of compensation of the said acquired lands of the Petitioners under the New Act, 2013 by initiating fresh proceedings for acquisition of the lands of the Petitioners in the interest of justice.
B. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondents herein not to take possession of the lands of the Petitioners as mentioned herein above, pursuant to the communication order dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure-B) and communications dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure-C), in the interest of justice.
C. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any further relief, which may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The specific case of the petitioners in the writ petition is that the lands of the petitioners situated at village Lifri, Taluka Nakhatrana, District Kutch had been acquired by the respondents herein by publication of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated Page 2 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined 02.03.2010 and 14.10.2010; respectively. The award pursuant thereto had been declared on 30.01.2013 under Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 2009 under Section 11 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short as the "Act' 1894").
4. The petitioners herein claim to be owners in occupation of the lands, which have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, details whereof are as under :-
Name of the Petitioner No. Survey No. Area petitioner Jitendra Petitioner No.1 126 Paiki 2 1-16-00 Ambalal Patel 126 Paiki 3 1-17-00 126 Paiki 4 4-48-20 Amkorba Petitioners No. 129 Paiki 3 0-78-91 Vesajiu Hothi & 2 to 17 Other 16
5. It is the case of the petitioners that after acquisition proceedings were concluded with the award dated 30.01.2013, a proposal was made by the letter dated 02.11.2013 by respondent no.3, viz. Special Land Acquisition Officer, intimating that acquiring body, Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (GMDC) vide letter dated 14.08.2012 had informed the respondent no.3 that the acquired land was not falling in lignite bearing area and the same was required to be released from acquisition.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that on the said proposal, as per the request made by the acquiring body, viz. respondent no.4 herein, the proceedings for release of the Page 3 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined lands in question from acquisition was initiated and the proposal was forwarded to the competent authority. It is further stated in the writ petition that inspite of the fact that the GMDC (acquiring body) had requested the State Government, viz. the respondent no.1 herein to release the land from acquisition, still in the name of respondent no.4 was entered in the revenue records. There is a reference of the letter dated 30.04.2019 by the respondent no.3, viz. the Deputy Collector, informing the petitioner no.1 that the proposal had already been made to release the lands in question by the letter dated 02.11.2013.
7. Similar informations were received by the petitioners in the year 2021. The petitioners made representation to the State Government for releasing the lands in question from acquisition from time to time. However, for the first time, by letter dated 04.10.2024, the petitioners were informed by the Deputy Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer, viz. the respondent no.3 herein that the amount of compensation has been deposited with interest pursuant to the award dated 30.01.2013 and the petitioners were directed to remain present on 17.10.2014 with their identity cards and bank details for disbursement of the same.
8. The petitioners made representation dated 04.10.2014 through their lawyer strongly objecting to the deposit of the amount of compensation after a period of approximately 11 years of declaration of the award and further requested for release of the lands from acquisition. However, thereafter, the communications/notices dated 21.11.2024 and 28.11.2024 Page 4 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined were sent informing the petitioners that the amount of compensation has been deposited with interest and further that the possession of the land in question was to be taken and they were required to remain present for preparation of the panchnama on 09.12.2024.
9. Having faced with this situation, the petitioners filed a reference under Section 18 on 13.12.2024 before the Deputy Collector on the ground that the award had been passed in the year 2013 and the amount of compensation since has been deposited recently, they be allowed to make a reference. The reference application has been rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 08.01.2025 on the ground that it was beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, inasmuch as, the award though was made on 30.01.2013 but the application for reference was made by the petitioners only on 13.12.2024.
10. In this writ petition, the petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside of the entire acquisition proceedings on the ground that it had lapsed under the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short as the "Act' 2013") by virtue of Section 24(2) therein. In the alternative, the relief sought is to determine the compensation amount for the acquired lands under the Act' 2013 by initiating fresh proceedings for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners.
11. In response to the claim of the petitioners in the writ petition, in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Page 5 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined acquiring body, GMDC, it is admitted that though the award was made on 30.01.2013, but the compensation amount has been deposited only on 30.07.2024. The explanation for the delay in deposit of the compensation amount, offered in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the acquiring body, is that though the lands in question were acquired for lignite project infrastructure, however, in view of the change of plan, the GMDC had initially, decided that the lands in question were not required for the purposes at the relevant point of time. However, subsequently in the year 2021, decision was taken that the lands in question acquired by the GMDC are required for core mining purposes, i.e. lignite excavation. It was then decided to deposit the compensation amount and the possession was taken on 09.12.2024, only after deposit of the compensation amount with interest.
12. It is sought to be submitted that the GMDC has been using the lands in question for excavating the lignite since the date of possession, i.e. 09.12.2024 and, at present, the acquired lands are in the possession of GMDC. It is further sought to be contended in the affidavit of the GMDC that having availed the alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act' 1894, the petitioners cannot be permitted to seek any other relief and the writ petition is required to be dismissed on this ground alone.
13. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State respondents, the date of deposit of compensation by the acquiring body is admitted. There is a reference to the letter dated 16.11.2021, where the GMDC had communicated that Page 6 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined out of 5 pieces of lands, it required only 3 plots, viz. land bearing Survey No. 126/Paiki 2, 126/Paiki 3 and 126/Paiki 4 as they are lignite bearing lands and rest of the lands are required to be released. From a perusal of the said communication appended as Annexure 'R7' to the affidavit of the State respondents at pages '108 - 109' of the paper book, it is evident that the General Manager (Project), GMDC wrote to the Deputy Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer that the proceedings were required to be conducted under the 2013 Act (new Act), for the purposes of acquisition of three plots needed by them, whereas other two plots being Survey No. 129/2 and 129/3 were required to be released.
14. However, in response thereto, surprisingly, a letter dated 03.07.2023 was sent by the Revenue Department, opining that since the award dated 30.01.2013 had not been cancelled/withdrawn and the GMDC had expressed its intention to acquire the subject lands, taking into account the provision of Section 24(1)(b) of the Act' 2013, the acquisition proceedings can continue under the old Acquisition Act' 1894 itself. The direction was issued to the GMDC to deposit the compensation amount along with 15% interest to the land owners/beneficiaries of the five survey numbers.
15. We may also refer to the communication dated 07.06.2022 sent by the respondent no.4 GMDC, which is appended as Annexure 'R8' at page nos. '111-112' of the paper book, wherein the GMDC had expressed its intention to deposit the compensation under the new Act, viz. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Page 7 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
16. It is, thus, clear that thought there was a clear understanding on the part of the acquiring body, viz. the GMDC, expressed vide communications dated 16.11.2021 and 07.06.2022 that there was a need for acquisition of the three plots required by the GMDC under the Act' 2013, the Revenue Department seems to have misguided the GMDC by writing the communication dated 03.07.2023 that since the lands in question had not been released, the compensation can be deposited by the GMDC along with 15% interest, inasmuch as, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to continue under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 taking into account Section 24(1)(b) of the Act' 2013.
17. It seems that, thereafter, another communication dated 15.07.2024 was written by the Assistant Collector, Nakhatrana, the deponent herein, directing the GMDC to make the payment of compensation amount pursuant to the communication dated 03.07.2023 sent by the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat (which finds place at Annexure 'R9' at page 115 of the paper book).
18. In furtherance to the said communication, compensation amount was deposited on 30.07.2024 and the land owners were intimated about the same. From the reply submitted on behalf of the State respondents, it is evident that the compensation amount stands deposited with the competent authority/Mamlatdar, Nakhatrana, as on date.
19. The contention of the respondents is that the possession Page 8 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined of the land in question has been taken on 09.12.2024 and was handed over to the GMDC. However, there is no panchnama on record which would indicate taking over of the possession of the lands in question from the land owners and the possession thereof having been handed over to the GMDC, in a legal manner. The only statement made in paragraph '17' of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents is about the communication made by the Circle Officer, Nakhatrana dated 09.12.2024 to the Mamlatdar, Nakhatrana, which is appended as Annexure 'R15' to the paper book, which cannot be said to be a document of valid transfer of the possession, taking paper possession of the lands in question and transfer to the GMDC. No panchnama indicating the transfer of paper possession of the lands in question has been appended with the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the GMDC.
20. Both the learned advocates appearing for the GMDC, viz. acquiring body and the State respondents would rely on the letter dated 09.12.2024 at Annexure 'R15' of the affidavit of the State respondents to assert that a panchnama has been prepared in the presence of panchas.
21. From the stand of the acquiring body as also the stand of the State respondents, it is evident that no proper proceedings had been undertaken for delivery of possession of the lands in question from the petitioners/land owners to the acquiring body. In absence of any panchnama/paper possession documents having been brought on record, the reference to the communication dated 09.12.2024 sent by the Circle Officer, Nakhatrana to the Mamlatdar, Nakhatrana is Page 9 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined liable to be ignored being misconceived. The communication dated 09.12.2024 is nothing but a waste piece of paper, insofar as, the transfer of valid possession to the acquiring body from the land holders is concerned.
22. For a valid transfer of possession to the acquiring body, the requirement was to prepare the panchnama in the presence of the land holders/petitioners and the representatives of the acquiring body. Both the affidavits filed on behalf of the acquiring body (GMDC) and the State respondents are completely silent about any such procedure having been adopted on 09.12.2024 when allegedly possession of the lands in question had been taken.
23. From the assertions in the communication dated 09.12.2024, when considered, it only transpires that the notices dated 28.11.2024 and 30.11.2024 were sent to the land holders to remain present on 09.12.2024 for transfer of possession. The said communication further records that the land holders remained absent and the panchnama was prepared in the presence of the representatives of the acquiring body.
24. Moreover, when the land holders were agitating the action of the State authorities in permitting the acquiring body to deposit the compensation amount after a period of more than 11 years for transferring the possession of the lands in question, they cannot be excepted to participate in the proceedings of the transfer of possession.
Page 10 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
25. From the above-noted facts, it is evident that the acquiring body, viz. respondent No. 4 GMDC initially was of the view that five plots acquired by the notifications dated 02.03.2010 and 14.10.2010 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not needed by it for the purpose for which they were acquired at the relevant point of time. It had, therefore, decided not to go ahead with the acquisition and wrote a letter in the year 2013 itself, to the Special Land Acquisition officer for release of the lands in question. Even in the years 2021 and 2022, in the communications sent by the GMDC, it was expressed that the lands needed by it, viz. three plots out of five are to be acquired under the Act' 2013 with the change of the regime and the proceedings accordingly, were to be undertaken.
26. It seems that it is the Revenue Department of the State, which has misguided the GMDC in communicating vide letter dated 03.07.2013 that since the lands in question had not been released, the land acquisition proceedings would be deemed to be continued under the Act' 2013 as the award had been passed on 30.01.2013. After that, the GMDC had deposited the compensation amount determined under the Award dated 30.01.2013 along with interest @ 15% on the premise that the land acquisition proceedings had been concluded with the making of the award on 30.01.2013 and the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) of the Act' 2013 would attach legal sanctity to it.
27. What has been forgotten or conveniently ignored by the officers of the Revenue Department is the provisions of Sub-
Page 11 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined section (2) of Section 24 of the Act' 2013, which reads as under :-
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-
(1) xxxx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
28. Section 24 of the Act' 2013 is a transitory provision, which is in two parts. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 saves the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 states that where no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been made, all provisions of the Act' 2013 relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. Meaning thereby, in the acquisition proceedings which were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if Page 12 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined award could not be made, the compensation would have to be determined by proceeding under the Act' 2013, to bring the land acquisition proceedings to its logical end. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 would apply where an award has been made under Section 11 of the Act' 1894, inasmuch as, it saves the proceedings initiated under the old Act where the stage has reached for taking possession and disbursement of compensation under Section 11 of the old Act' 1894.
29. The second part of Section 24 contained in sub-section (2) provides the situation where the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act' 1894 would lapse and there would be the requirement for the appropriate Government to initiate the land acquisition proceedings afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act' 2013, if it so chooses. Proviso to sub-section (2) talks of a situation where the award has been made, but compensation in respect of majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the accounts of the beneficiaries. In such situation, the beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act' 1894 are entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act' 2013.
30. From the reading of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act' 2013, it is evident that the legislature has provided for according benefits of the Act' 2013 where acquisition proceedings though initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had not been concluded on the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, which is 01.01.2014. In all such cases where the award has not been made under Section Page 13 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined 11 of the Act' 1894 or where though the award has been made but the compensation has not been deposited in the account of the majority of the beneficiaries, the land owners are held entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act' 2013. The only saviour is in a case where the award has been made under Section 11 of the Act' 1894, for the proceedings which were initiated under the old Act' 1894 to continue as if the said Act has not been repealed.
31. The provision of lapse of acquisition proceedings under sub-section (2) of Section 24 is in the nature of exception to sub-section (1) thereof. Considering the provisions of saviour and lapse of the land acquisition proceedings conducted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the facts of the present case are to be appreciated.
32. The present is a case where though the award has been declared in the year 2013 under Section 11 of the Act' 1894, repealed on 01.01.2014, but neither the compensation for the lands in question had been deposited nor the physical possession of the lands has been taken. The lands in question remained in the possession of the land holders throughout who were reeling under an impression till the year 2024 that their lands would be released from acquisition as the acquired body, viz. the GMDC did not require the lands in question for its purposes.
33. It is admitted in the affidavit of the GMDC that they wrote to the Land Acquisition Officer not to continue with the acquisition proceedings and requested to release the lands in question. On the proposal of the GMDC, the proceedings for Page 14 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined release of the lands in question under Section 48 of the Act' 1894 were initiated but remained pending. In the years 2021 and 2022, the GMDC has expressed its intention of requirement of three plots out of five plots acquired under the Act' 1894 with the clear understanding that with the change of regime, fresh proceedings were to be undertaken.
34. In this scenario, the question is as to whether sub- section (1) of Section 24, which is the saving clause for the acquisition proceedings under the Act' 1894, would apply or whether the acquisition proceedings would lapse by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act' 2013.
35. It is contended by the learned counsels for the respondents GMDC and the State that sub-section (2) of Section 24 would be attracted only in a case where an award under Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act' 2013. However, in the present case the award has been made in the year 2013, few months prior to the commencement of the Act, 2013 (with effect from 01.01.2014), there is no question of application of sub-section (2) of Section 24. At the most, the land owners would be covered by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24, which provides for determination of compensation under the Act' 2013. The land acquisition proceedings having been concluded with the making of the award in the year 2013 under Section 11 of the Act' 1894, there is no effect of repeal even though neither physical possession of the lands in question had been taken nor the compensation determined under the award of 2013 had been deposited till the year Page 15 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined 2024.
36. The contention is that the land acquisition proceedings conducted under the Act' 1894 with respect to the lands in question are to be saved by virtue of Section 24 (1) (b) of the Act' 2013 and, at the best, the petitioners may be held entitled to a fresh determination of compensation under the Act' 2013.
37. While dealing with the said submissions, pertinent is to note that there is no dispute about the fact that the land acquisition proceedings remained at the stage of making of the award in the year 2013, for a period of 11 years, and nothing has proceeded, inasmuch as, as per the acquiring body, it did not require the lands in question at the relevant point of time. Once the acquiring body had decided not to continue with the land acquisition proceedings under the old Act' 1894, at the relevant point of time by writing a letter dated 14.08.2012 informing the land acquisition authorities that the acquired lands were not falling in the lignite bearing area, and, therefore, the same was required to be released from the acquisition and the proceedings for release be conducted as per the decision of the acquiring body, it is not open for the GMDC to turn around and say that the land acquisition proceedings had been concluded with the making of the award in the year 2013 and the lands in question shall have to be treated to be acquired lands under the old Land Acquisition Act' 1894.
38. Looking to the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it may be noted that under Section 16 of the said Act, the power of the Collector to take possession of the acquired Page 16 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined lands could be exercised after making of the award under Section 11. Meaning thereby if after the award had been made, the possession of the acquired lands had been taken in accordance with law, the acquired lands would vest absolutely in the appropriate Government, free from all encumbrances. In the instant case, admittedly, the possession had not been taken though the award had been made under Section 11 of the Act, 2013. There is, thus, no question of vesting of the lands in question with the State Government by virtue of Section 16 of the Act' 1894.
39. The question of the correct interpretation of Section 24 of the Act' 2013 was considered by the Constitution bench of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. The specific question before the Apex Court was to interpret the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013. The Apex Court has posed the following questions for determination :-
"5.1. (i) Whether the word "or" in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act used in between possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid to be read as "and"? 5.2. (ii) Whether the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has to be construed as part thereof or the proviso to Section 24(1)(b)?
5.3. (iii) What meaning is to be given to the word "paid"
used in Section 24(2) and "deposited" used in the proviso to Section 24(2)?
5.4. (iv) What are the consequences of payment not made?
5.5. (v) What are the consequences of the amount not deposited?
Page 17 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined 5.6. (vi) What is the effect of a person refusing to accept the compensation?"
40. While answering the aforesaid questions, the Apex Court has noted the salient features of the Act' 2013 and held that Section 24(2) carves out an exception to Section 24(1)(b), where the award has been passed and the proceedings are pending, but in such proceedings where physical possession of the lands in question has not been taken and compensation has not been paid, proceedings shall lapse. It was held by the Apex Court therein that the two conditions enumerated in sub-section (2), i.e. (i) the physical possession of the land has not been taken; (ii) the compensation has not been paid, are cumulative, i.e. both are to be fulfilled for lapse of acquisition proceedings.
41. It was held that Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013 is a penal provision - to punish the acquiring authority for its lethargy in not taking physical possession nor paying the compensation after making the award five years or more before the commencement of the Act' 2013 in the pending proceedings, provided that they would lapse.
42. It is held by the Apex Court therein that the expression "where an award has been made, then the proceedings shall continue" used in Section 24(1)(b) under the provisions of the Act' 1894 means that the proceedings were pending in praesenti as on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act and are not concluded proceedings, and in that context, an exception has been carved out in Section 24(2). [Ref:- Para '113' of Indore Development Authority (supra)] Page 18 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
43. It was observed by the Apex Court in para '114' therein that the expression "possession of the land has not been taken" or "compensation has not been paid" indicates a failure on the part of the authorities to take the necessary steps for five years or more in a pending proceeding under Section 24(1)(b). Section 24 starts with a non-obstante clause overriding what is contained in Section 24(1). Thus, Section 24(2) has to be read as an exception to Section 24(1)(b). By reading "or" as "and" occurring in sub-section (2) of Section 24, the Apex Court has taken note of Section 16 of the Act' 1894 to record that the said provision enables the Collector to take possession of the acquired land, when an award is made under Section 11. The Collector could, on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of notice under Section 9(1) of the Act' 1894, take possession of any land needed for a public purpose and such land was to thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.
44. It is held that from a plain reading of Section 16 (of the Act' 1894), it is apparent that the land vests in the Government absolutely when possession is taken after the award is passed. In view of the same, there can be lapse of the proceedings under the Act' 1894 only when the possession is not taken. Vesting of land is automatic on the happening of two exigencies under the Act' 1894, of passing award and taking possession, as provided under Section 16. Once the possession is taken under Section 16 of the Act' 1894, the owner of the land loses title over it and the Government becomes the absolute owner of the land.Page 19 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
45. Considering the Statement of Object and reasons of the Act' 2013 and the emergency provisions of the acquisition contained in Section 17 of the Act' 1894, it was held therein that the provisions for lapsing under Section 24 is available only when the award has been made but possession has not been taken within 5 years nor compensation has been made. It was held that the word "or" if read disjunctively, the proceedings shall lapse even after possession has been taken. To prevent lapse of the proceedings once the land has vested with the State Government and, in most cases, development has already been made, it was observed therein that the expressions used in Section 24(2) "possession of the land has not been taken" and "the compensation has not been paid"
are unrelated and carry different consequences under the Act' 1894. These conditions are merely exclusive conditions and cannot be used as alternative conditions. In cases where compensation has been paid, but the possession has not been taken due to one reason or the other for no fault of the authorities or otherwise and the cases where possession is taken but the compensation has not been paid, Section 24(1) of the Act' 2013 is to be given full effect.
46. It was noted that the transitory provision or a repealing law cannot divest the State Government of the land absolutely vested in it, inasmuch as, the transitory provision by its very nature is an inbuilt provision which could be interpreted in a manner so as not to take away, disturb or adversely affect rights created by operation of law.
Page 20 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
47. The Apex Court has also taken note of Section 48 of the Act' 1894, which permits withdrawal of the land acquisition proceedings only in a case where the possession has not been taken under Section 16 or 17(1) of the Act' 1894 and has noted that in case the possession has been taken, there cannot be any withdrawal from the land acquisition proceedings under the Act' 1894.
48. The Apex Court has, thus, proceeded to consider the submissions of the land owners therein that in cases where the State had taken possession without paying compensation as required under the Act' 1894, there cannot be absolute vesting free from all encumbrances under Section 16. While answering the said submission, it was held by the Apex Court that vesting under Section 16 of the Act' 1894 does not depend upon payment of compensation and that the vesting takes place as soon as the possession is taken after passing of the award. Undoubtedly, the compensation has also to be paid but deposit in the Court as per Sections 31 and 34 of the Act' 1894 would absolve the Government of the liability to make payment of interest. However, if the payment is not tendered under Section 31(1) nor deposited in the Court as envisaged under Section 31(2) from the date of taking possession, the interest @ 9% and 15% under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act' 1894 was payable.
49. It was held that the effect of vesting, under no circumstances, is taken away due to non-compliance of Section 31(1), which requires tender and payment or Section 31(2), which requires the compensation amount to be Page 21 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined deposited in the Court, inasmuch as, the payment is secured along with interest under the provisions of Section 34 read with Section 31 of the Act' 1894. It is, thus, held by the Apex Court that the State cannot be asked to restore the possession once taken, but in case it fails to make deposit under Section 31(2) of the Act' 1894 or otherwise with respect to majority of the land holdings, in that exigency, all the beneficiaries as on the date of notification under Section 4, shall be entitled to higher compensation under the Act' 2013 as per the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 and there would be no lapse in that case.
50. Noticing the concept of vesting under the Act' 1894, it was held by the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority (supra) that the Government cannot withdraw from acquisition under Section 48, once it has taken the possession. The owner is divested with the title of the land which is vested in the Government and there is no provision by which the land can be reverted to the owner under the Act' 1894, inasmuch as, divesting of the State Government is impermissible. There is no lapse of acquisition where the possession is taken but compensation has not been paid under the Act' 1894. There is nothing in the 1894 Act to show that non-compliance thereof shall be fatal or lead to any penalty.
51. As far as the legal fiction of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013, it was held that it cannot be extended to denude title which has already been vested in the beneficiaries of the acquisition bodies and who, in turn, have also conveyed title and transferred the land to some other Page 22 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined person after development. Lapse is provided only where the possession has not been taken nor the compensation has been paid, inasmuch as, the divesting of vested land is not intended nor specifically provided.
52. While dealing with the question of vested rights under Section 24 of the Act' 2013, it was held that Section 24 does not intend to take away vested rights. There is no specific provision taking away or divesting title to the land, which had originally vested with the State, or divesting the title or interest of beneficiaries or third party transferees of such land which they had lawfully acquired, through sales or transfers, in the interregnum. The drastic consequence of divesting cannot be said to have been intended under Section 24 of the Act' 2013. It was held that Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013 is to be interpreted consistent with the legislative intent, particularly when it has provided for the lapse of the proceedings. Undoubtedly, Section 24(2) has retrospective operation with respect to the acquisitions initiated under the 1894 Act and which are not completed by taking possession nor compensation has been paid inspite of lapse of 5 years and proceedings are kept pending due to the lethargy of the officials. The drastic consequences follow by the provisions contained in Section 24(2) in such cases.
53. The observations in para '152' in Indore Development Authority (supra) in that regard are relevant to be extracted herein under :-
"152. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be interpreted Page 23 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined consistent with the legislative intent, particularly when it has provided for the lapse of the proceedings. It has to be interpreted in the light of provisions made in Sections 24 and 114 of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, what it protects and to what extent it takes away the rights of the parties. Undoubtedly, Section 24(2) has retroactive operation with respect to the acquisitions initiated under the 1894 Act and which are not completed by taking possession nor compensation has been paid in spite of lapse of 5 years and proceedings are kept pending due to lethargy of the officials. The drastic consequences follow by the provisions contained in Section 24(2) in such cases."
54. It was further held that Section 24(1)(b) is a self- contained provision and is also a part of the non-obstante clause to the other provisions of the Act as provided under sub-section (1). The Parliament worked out an exception by providing a non-obstante clause in Section 24(2) to Section 24(1). The compensation under Section 24(1)(b) is to be paid under the Act' 1894 and not under the Act' 2013. Section 24(2) is an exception to Section 24(1)(b) and the proviso to sub-section is also an exception which fits in with non- obstante clause of Section 24 (2) only. Section 24(1)(b) which provides that pending proceedings shall continue under the Act, 1894 as if it had not been repealed, would include the part relating to compensation too. If there is no lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2), only higher compensation follows.
55. It is further observed that Section 24(2) deals with "the award having been made 5 years before the commencement of the new Act". The legislative history also indicates that it was intended that 5 years period should be adequate to make Page 24 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined payment of compensation and to pay compensation. In that spirit, the proviso has been carved out as part of section 24(2). The non-obstante clause qualifies the proviso to Section 24(2) and the only exception carved out to the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) where an award has been made under Section 11 of the Act' 1894 is the period of 5 years or more when the possession has not been taken and the compensation has not been paid.
56. It was held that the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) are clear if an award has not been passed, higher compensation to follow, no lapse is provided. In case, award has been passed within the window period of Section of Section 24(1)(b), inter alia, the provisions for compensation would be that of the Act' 1894. The only exception to Section 24(1) is created by the non-obstante clause in Section 24(2) by providing that in case the requisite steps have not been taken for 5 years or more, then there is lapse as a negative condition. Lapse of acquisition is provided only in the exigencies where possession has not been taken, nor compensation has been paid in the proceedings for acquisition pending as on the date on which the 2013 Act came into force, then the State Government has to initiate fresh proceedings if it so desires. It was held that the proviso is part of the scheme of Section 24(2), and the entire provision of Section 24(2), including the proviso, operates when inaction is there for a period of 5 years or more, as contemplated therein.
57. Section 24(2) saves land which has been vested in the State once award has been passed and the possession of the Page 25 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined land has been taken. However, in case the compensation has not been deposited with respect to majority of the land owners, in any given award, in view of the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013, all beneficiaries have to be paid higher compensation under the new Act. What would be the majority of the landholdings has to be seen in the context, what has been acquired in the case of a single plot being acquired, and in case compensation has not been deposited with respect to that, it will constitute the majority. The majority does not depend upon the number of holdings acquired, but what constitutes the majority as per the acquired area under the notification. It was, thus, held in para '191', as under :-
"191. Section 24(1)(a) operates where no award is made in a pending acquisition proceeding; in such event all provisions of the new Act relating to determination of compensation would apply. Section 24(1)(b) logically continues with the second situation i.e. where the award has been passed, and states that in such event, proceedings would continue under the 1894 Act. Section 24(2) -- by way of an exception, states that where an award is made but requisite steps have not been taken for five years or more to take possession nor compensation has been paid then there is lapse of acquisition. If one of the steps has been taken, then the proviso can operate. Time is the essence. It is on the basis of time-lag that the lapse is provided and in default of payment for five years as provided on failure to deposit higher compensation is to be paid. It is based on that time-lag higher compensation has to follow. It is not the mere use of colon under Section 24(2) but the placement of the proviso next to Section 24(2) and not below Section 24(1)(b). Thus, it is not permissible to alter a placement of the proviso more so when it is fully in consonance with the provisions of Section 24(2). Section 24(2) completely obliterates the old regime to the effect of its field of operation. Under Section 24(1) Page 26 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
(a), there is a partial lapse of the old regime because all proceedings, till the stage of award are preserved. The award, in such proceedings, made after coming into force of the 2013 Act has to take into account its provisions, for determination of compensation. Thus, proceedings up to the stage of the award are deemed final under the old Act. In the case under Section 24(1)
(b), the old regime prevails. The proviso is an exception to Section 24(2) and in part the new regime for payment of higher compensation in case of default for 5 years or more after award."
58. On the question of interpretation of meaning of "paid" used in Section 24(2) and "deposited" used, for the proviso to Section 24(2) it was held in paragraphs '226' and '232' as under :-
"226. Thus, in our opinion, the word "paid" used in Section 24(2) does not include within its meaning the word "deposited", which has been used in the proviso to Section 24(2). Section 31 of the 1894 Act, deals with the deposit as envisaged in Section 31(2) on being "prevented" from making the payment even if the amount has been deposited in the treasury under the Rules framed under Section 55 or under the Standing Orders, that would carry the interest as envisaged under Section 34, but acquisition would not lapse on such deposit being made in the treasury. In case amount has been tendered and the landowner has refused to receive it, it cannot be said that the liability arising from non- payment of the amount is that of lapse of acquisition. Interest would follow in such a case also due to non- deposit of the amount. Equally, when the landowner does not accept the amount, but seeks a reference for higher compensation, there can be no question of such individual stating that he was not paid the amount (he was determined to be entitled to by the Collector). In such case, the landowner would be entitled to the compensation determined by the Reference Court."
"232. Deposit in treasury in place of deposit in court Page 27 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined causes no prejudice to the landowner or any other stakeholder as their interest is adequately safeguarded by the provisions contained in Section 34 of the 1894 Act, as it ensures higher rate of interest than any other government securities. Their money is safe and credited in the earmarked quantified amount and can be made available for disbursement to him/them. There is no prejudice caused and every infraction of law would not vitiate the act."
59. The Apex Court has also considered in detail about the mode of taking possession under the Act' 1894 while noticing that under Section 16 of the Act' 1894, vesting of title in the Government, in the land took place immediately upon taking the possession. It was held that drawing of Panchnama of taking possession is the mode of taking possession in land acquisition cases, thereupon land vests in the State and any re-entry or retaining the possession thereafter is unlawful and does not inure for conferring benefits under section 24(2) of the Act' 2013. It was then held that Section 24 treats land acquisition proceedings as one and prescribes the transition mechanism for the said proceedings. The possession of the land holdings in normal course is to be taken at one go, not in piecemeal by the Authorities. Once award is made, the possession is to be taken, and on that the land vests in State under Section 16. Whereas vesting under Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 is complete where the possession of any land has been taken for public purposes in cases of urgency, even without passing of the award.
60. Under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act' 1894, the acquired land became the property of the State without any condition or limitation either as to title or possession. Absolute title, Page 28 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined thus, vested in the State. It was observed that it is apparent that vesting is with possession and the statute has provided under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1894 that once possession is taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting is with possession thereafter. The vesting specified under Section 16, takes place after various steps, such as, notification under section 4, declaration under section 6, notice under section 9, award under section 11 and then possession. The statutory provision of vesting of property absolutely free from all encumbrances has to be accorded full effect. Not only the possession vests in the State but all other encumbrances are also removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases and the State becomes the absolute owner and in possession of the property. He cannot have any animus to take the property and to control it. Even if he has retained the possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after possession has been taken by the State, he is a trespasser and such possession of trespasser enures for his benefit and on behalf of the owner. After the land has vested with the State, the total control is of the State. Only the State has the right to deal with the same.
61. It was observed that the word "vest" has to be construed in the context in which it is used in a particular provision of the Act. Vesting is absolute and free from all encumbrances that includes possession. Once there is vesting of land, i.e. once possession has been taken, section 24(2) does not contemplate divesting of the property from the State.
Page 29 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
62. It was, thus, observed in para '288' that :-
"288..........The expression "acquisition proceedings" is referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 24 and its proviso makes it clear that in case in majority of the landholdings compensation has not been deposited, all the beneficiaries as on the date of notification under Section 4 (of the 1894 Act) shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. That also intends to give benefits to all the concerned. Payment of compensation too has to be made. Possession of landholdings is to be taken in terms of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 and payment has to be made to the beneficiaries. In case payment has not been made to the landowners nor is possession taken, there is a lapse. In case compensation has not been deposited within 5 years with respect to majority of landholdings, then all the beneficiaries are entitled for higher compensation under the 2013 Act."
63. It was further held that :-
"289.......When there is a provision itself in Section 24(1)(b) of continuance of the proceedings where award has been passed under the 1894 Act, for the purposes of Section 24 as provided in Section 24(b), the provisions of Section 114 is clearly attracted so as the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to the extent of non obstante clause of Section 24, where possession has not been taken nor payment has been made, there is a lapse, that too by the inaction of the authorities. Any court's interim order cannot be said to be inaction of the authorities or agencies; thus, time period is not to be included for counting the 5 years period as envisaged in Section 24(2). As per the proviso to Section 24(2), where possession has been taken, but compensation has not been paid or deposited with respect to majority of Page 30 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined landholdings, all the beneficiaries would be entitled for higher compensation only to that extent, the provisions of Section 114 of the 2013 Act, would be superseded but it would not obliterate the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which deals with effect of repeal except as provided in Section 24(2) and its proviso."
"295. The 2013 Act operates prospectively. Section 114 of the 2013 Act, effects a repeal, but with certain savings, in accordance with Section 24. Thus, acquisition proceedings are preserved under the 1894 Act, till the stage of making of award; where award is not made, the provisions of compensation under the 2013 Act apply; where award is made, further proceedings would be under the new Act (of 2013). In case possession has been taken by the authorities concerning awards which were made 5 years or before, under the 1894 Act and such proceedings are pending, that would be due to inaction of the authorities on the date on which the 2013 Act came into force. The lapse (of acquisition) and higher compensation to follow only under Section 24(2), where compensation is not paid, nor possession of lands is taken. A period of 5 years or more has been provided under Section 24. In the case, however, where possession is taken, but compensation is not deposited in respect of majority landholdings, compensation under the 2013 Act is payable to all
--including those who received compensation earlier."
"334. For all these reasons, it is held that the omission to expressly enact a provision, that excludes the period during which any interim order was operative, preventing the State from taking possession of acquired land, or from giving effect to the award, in a particular case or cases, cannot result in the inclusion of such period or periods for the purpose of reckoning the period of 5 years. Also, merely because timelines are indicated, with Page 31 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined the consequence of lapsing, under Sections 19 and 69 of the 2013 Act, per se does not mean that omission to factor such time (of subsistence of interim orders) has any special legislative intent. This Court notices, in this context, that even under the new Act (nor was it so under the 1894 Act) no provision has been enacted, for lapse of the entire acquisition, for non-payment of compensation within a specified time; nor has any such provision been made regarding possession. Furthermore, non-compliance with payment and deposit provisions (under Section 77) only results in higher interest pay-outs under Section 80. The omission to provide for exclusion of time during which interim orders subsisted, while determining whether or not acquisitions lapsed, in the present case, is a clear result of inadvertence or accident, having regard to the subject-matter, refusal to apply the principle underlying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit would result in injustice."
"345. Section 24(2) is sought to be used as an umbrella so as to question the concluded proceedings in which possession has been taken, development has been made, and compensation has been deposited, but may be due to refusal, it has not been collected. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings cannot be made within the parameters of Section 24(2) once panchnama had been drawn of taking possession, thereafter re- entry or retaining the possession is that of the trespasser. The legality of the proceedings cannot be challenged belatedly, and the right to challenge cannot be revived by virtue of the provisions of Section 24(2). Section 24(2) only contemplates lethargy/inaction of the authorities to act for five years or more. It is very easy to lay a claim that physical possession was not taken, with respect to open land. Yet, once vesting takes place, possession is presumed to be that of the owner i.e. the State Government and land has been transferred to the beneficiaries, corporations, authorities, etc. for developmental purposes and Page 32 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined third-party interests have intervened. Such challenges cannot be entertained at all under the purview of Section 24(2) as it is not what is remotely contemplated in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act."
"346. In matters of land acquisition, this Court has frowned upon, and cautioned courts about delays and held that delay is fatal in questioning the land acquisition proceedings. In case possession has not been taken in accordance with law and vesting is not in accordance with Section 16, proceedings before courts are to be initiated within reasonable time, not after the lapse of several decades."
"359. The entire gamut of submissions of the landowners is based on the misinterpretation of the provisions contained in Section 24. It does not intend to divest the State of possession (of the land), title to which has been vested in the State. It only intends to give higher compensation in case the obligation of depositing of compensation has not been fulfilled with regard to the majority of holdings. A fresh cause of action in Section 24 has been given if for five years or more possession has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In case possession has been taken and compensation has not been deposited with respect to the majority of landholdings, higher compensation to all incumbents follows, as mentioned above. Section 24 does not confer a new cause of action to challenge the acquisition proceedings or the methodology adopted for the deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of Reference Court, in that case, interest or higher compensation, as the case may be, can follow. In our considered opinion, Section 24 is applicable to pending proceedings, not to the concluded proceedings and the legality of the concluded proceedings, cannot be questioned. Such a challenge does not lie within the ambit of the deemed lapse under Section 24. The lapse under Section 24(2) is due to inaction or lethargy of Page 33 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined authorities in taking requisite steps as provided therein."
"366.1. 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 the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. 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 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. 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 2013 Act 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.
366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of Page 34 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined 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 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, 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). The landowners 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 2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.Page 35 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition."
64. On an exhaustive reading of the judgment in Indore Development Authority (supra), as noted in the relevant extracts of the judgment and the conclusion drawn by the Apex Court, while answering the questions on the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act' 2013, the principles culled out are as under :-
(i) Section 24(1)(b) of the Act' 2013 which saves the land acquisition proceedings under the Act' 1894, to continue as if it has not been repealed, is attracted in a case where the award has been passed within the window period of 5 years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the Court, if any.
(ii) The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for 5 years or more prior to the commencement of the Act' 2013, i.e. 01.01.2014, the possession of the land has not been taken nor the compensation has been paid.Page 36 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
(iii) In cases where possession has been taken, but compensation has not been paid, there is no lapse.
(iv) Similarly, if compensation has been paid, but possession has not been taken, even then, there is no lapse.
(v) The non-deposit of the compensation (in Court) does not result in lapse of land acquisition proceedings. The obligation to pay compensation is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1) of the Act' 1894. The landowners who have 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 2013 Act.
(vi) The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) and hence, the period of 5 years or more prior to the commencement of the Act' 2013 occurring in Section 24(2) would be attracted for the purpose of proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013 as well.
(vii) In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, as per the proviso to sub-section (2), compensation under the Act' 2013 has to be paid to all the beneficiaries, the "land owners" as specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act' 1894.
Page 37 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
(viii) The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2), is by drawing inquest report/memorandum/panchnama.
(ix) Once the award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013, hence once possession has been taken, there is no lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013.
(x) The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in cases where authorities have failed, due to their inaction, to take possession and pay compensation for 5 years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 01.01.2014.
(xi) Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013 does not give rise to a new cause of action to question the legality of the concluded proceedings of land acquisition.
(xii) Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act (01.01.2014) and it does not revive stale and time barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings. It does not allow landowners to question the legality of the mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of Court to Page 38 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined invalidate the acquisition.
65. In light of the above principles, when we appreciate the facts of the instant case, it is evident that though the award for determining compensation had been made prior to the enforcement of the Act' 2013 (prior to 01.01.2014), but the land acquisition proceedings have not been concluded prior to the commencement of the Act' 2013, inasmuch as, the possession of the lands in question had not been taken. The compensation computed under the old Act of 1894 has been deposited after a period of 11 years of the commencement of the 2013 Act.
66. The present is a case where the vesting under Section 16 of the Act' 1894 has not taken place prior to the commencement of the Act' 2013, i.e. on or before 01.01.2014. Under the scheme of the Act' 1894, the conclusion of the land acquisition proceeding is not contemplated with the mere making of the award under Section 11 thereof. The Collector was required to undertake further proceedings for taking possession of the acquired lands after making of the award under Section 11. Only after panchnama is drawn after completing steps to take possession of the acquired lands, the land would vest absolutely with the State Government free from all encumbrances. The making of award under Section 11 is not conclusion of the acquisition proceedings even in the case of urgency under Section 17. Taking of possession is the most crucial step to conclude the acquisition proceedings.
67. In the instant case, admittedly, prior to the Page 39 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined commencement of the Act' 2013, on or before 01.01.2014, no steps at all had been taken for taking possession of the lands in question at the ends of the Collector, instead, the Collector office had proposed for release of the lands in question under Section 48 of the Act' 1894 considering the request made by the acquiring body that it was not in the need of the lands in question.
68. Section 48 of the Act' 1894 empowers the State Government to withdraw from acquisition of any land before possession of such land has been taken. In this scenario, while proceedings were pending before the State Government for withdrawal from acquisition on the request made by the acquiring body, and the possession of the lands in question has not been taken on or before 01.01.2014, or even thereafter, there is no question of divesting of the land owners. The lands in question cannot be said to have vested with the State Government by any stretch of imagination on or before the commencement of the Act' 2013. The possession of the petitioners over the lands in question remained that of the land owners having valid title over the same, throughout.
69. There has been deliberate omission on the part of the acquiring body in depositing the compensation amount for a period of 11 years, (including the time period before and after the enforcement of the Act' 2013). The land owners cannot be termed as wrongdoers. The present is not a case where the State authorities were deprived or prohibited from taking physical or paper possession of the lands in question at the behest of the land owners. In the instant case, 5 parcels of Page 40 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined the lands in question had been acquired under the old enactment of 1894 but the acquisition proceedings has not been concluded for even a single parcel of land out of the total acquired area under the acquisition notification published under the Act' 1894.
70. The question is as to whether in such peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the acquiring body or the State respondents can argue that the acquisition proceedings had been concluded under the Act' 1894 merely by making of the award and the land owners are entitled for compensation with interest under the Act' 1894 as determined under the award dated 30.01.2013, as per the market value determined as on the date of Section 4 notification under the Act' 1894.
71. Another question is as to whether the land acquisition proceedings can be saved by virtue of Section 24(1)(b) or the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) would be attracted due to inaction or lapse on the part of the authorities.
72. Alternatively, whether the land owners have to be held entitled to higher compensation in accordance with the Act' 2013 by applying the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 in order to save the acquisition proceedings from being lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24.
73. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that since in the instant case, the award has been made on 30.01.2013, within the window period of 5 years prior to the commencement of the Act' 2013, there is no Page 41 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined question of application of sub-section (2) of Section 24. The submission is that the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) will apply in cases where the awards have been made at least 5 years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Much emphasis has been laid on the words "where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act". The submission is that as the award under Section 11 of the Act' 1894 has been made prior to the commencement of the Act' 2013, savior as per sub- section (1) (b) of Section 24 would apply.
74. Dealing with this submission, we are of the opinion that the words occurring in sub-section (2) of Section 24 that "where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act", has to be read and applied purposively. As held by the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority (supra), a period of 5 years or more provided under Section 24(2) contemplates lethargy/inaction of the authorities in cases where possession has not been taken in accordance with law and vesting is not in accordance with Section 16. It is also observed by the Apex Court in para '346' therein, as quoted hereinbefore, that in case the possession has not been taken in accordance with law and the vesting is not in accordance with Section 16, the proceedings before the Courts are to be initiated by the land holders within reasonable time, not after the lapse of several decades. It is held that Section 24 is applicable to pending proceedings, not to the concluded proceedings and the legality of the concluded proceedings cannot be questioned.
Page 42 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined The lapse under Section 24(2) is due to inaction or lethargy of the authorities in taking requisite steps as provided therein.
75. We, thus, find that the legislature while enacting sub- section (2) of Section 24, has contemplated such cases where even after making of the award, the land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act has not been concluded due to inaction or lethargy of the authorities in taking requisite steps, viz. undertaking proceedings for taking possession under Section 16 and payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act' 1894. The legislature cannot be expected to contemplate such cases where though the land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act could have been saved by virtue of Section 24(1)(b), inasmuch as, the award has been made under Section 11 of the Act' 1894 prior to the repeal, but they have not been concluded willfully as the acquiring body which later realised that it did not need the acquired lands for the purposes of acquisition. For the inaction on the part of the authorities in concluding the land acquisition proceedings under the Act' 1894, the land owners cannot be made to suffer by coercing them to receive compensation under the old Act' 1894 by applying Section 24(1)(b) of the Act' 2013.
76. Though Section 24(1)(b) does not contemplate any period for conclusion of the proceedings continued under the provisions of the Act' 1894 after making of the award, by providing timeline for taking possession and payment of compensation to the land holders, but it was expected by the legislature that the acquisition proceedings under the old Act' Page 43 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined 1894 which were to be saved by virtue of Section 24(1)(b) with the making of the award would be concluded within a reasonable time. The Section contemplates that such pending proceedings as on the date on which the 2013 Act came into force shall continue and taken to their logical end. Section 24(2) is in the nature of exception to Section 24(1)(b) in case of pending proceedings.
77. As held by the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority (supra), there are twin requirements for the lapse under Section 24(2); firstly possession has not been taken and secondly, compensation has not been paid. In case the possession has been taken, but the compensation has not been paid, there is no lapse. Similarly, in case the possession has been taken, but compensation has not been paid, there is no lapse. Both the conditions are cumulative and to be fulfilled for lapse of acquisition proceedings. It is held by the Apex Court in para '113' of the report in Indore Development Authority (supra) as noted hereinbefore that Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013 is a penal provision - to punish the acquiring authority for its lethargy in not taking physical possession nor paying compensation after making the award five years or more before commencement of the Act' 2013 in the pending proceedings, providing that they would lapse.
78. The expression "where an award has been made, then the proceeding shall continue" used in Section 24(1)(b) under the provisions of the Act' 1894 means that the proceedings were pending in praesenti as on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act are not concluded proceedings and in that Page 44 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined context, an exception has been carved out in Section 24(2).
79. Section 24(2) starts with a non-obstante clause overriding what is contained in Section 24(1). Having read the provisions contained in Section 24(2) as an exception to Section 24(1)(b), it is clear that the Parliament has enacted the beneficial provision in case the authorities delayed in taking of the possession and payment of compensation for 5 years or more. Meaning thereby, the acquisition proceedings has not been completed on account of inaction on the part of the authorities and not as a result of dilatory tactics and conduct of the land owners or other interested persons.
80. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted, at this juncture, that as has been held by the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority (supra), there can be no lapse of proceedings under the Act' 1894 when the possession is taken under Section 16 (of the 1894 Act) resulting into vesting of the land in the Government absolutely after the award is made.
81. The instant case, is a glaring example of not only inaction on the part of the authorities but willful denial on the part of the acquiring body in depositing compensation of the amount determined under the award passed on 30.01.2013, on the premise that it did not require the acquired lands for its purposes. Even the request made by the acquiring body, the proceedings for withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act' 1894 had been initiated as the possession has not been taken, but the same remained Page 45 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined pending again on account of inaction on the part of the State Government or the State Authorities. In any case, the land acquisition proceedings have not been concluded for a period of 11 years after making of the award and on a second thought, on the request of the acquiring body, the State Authorities had proceeded to apply Section 24(1)(b), permitting it to deposit compensation determined under the award dated 30.01.2013 passed under Section 11 of the old Act' 1894.
82. No legal proceedings for taking possession of the acquired lands has not been conducted even after deposit of the compensation. No panchnama or even transfer of possession on paper has been brought on record. Further, it cannot be said that there is any delay or laches on the part of the land owners in approaching this Court, inasmuch as, the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose only when the land owners received notices in the year 2024 asking them to receive compensation deposited by the acquiring body, and deliver possession.
83. This is a case where the possession has not been taken in accordance with law and there is no vesting under Section 16 of the Act' 1894 and the proceedings seeking quashing of the acquisition terming it as having been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act' 1894 has been initiated within a reasonable time, on 28.02.2025, when the State authorities permitted the acquiring body to deposit compensation in the month of November 2024. As per the case of the respondents, the lands in question had been transferred to the acquiring body Page 46 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined viz. the respondent no.4 GMDC on 09.12.2024. The petitioners having approached this Court within a period of three months from the action initiated by the State authorities, cannot be said to be at fault.
84. For the willful inaction on the part of the acquiring body, they cannot be benefitted. For the inaction on the part of the State authorities in keeping the status quo and not culminating the proceedings for release of lands under Section 48 within a reasonable time, no benefit can be provided to the acquiring body. The benefits cannot be accorded to the respondents by permitting the State authorities to continue with the land acquisition proceedings under the repealed Act' 1894, after a period of 11 years, as it would result in giving seal and stamp of approval to the arbitrary and unreasonable action of the authorities. In order to save the acquisition under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act' 2013, the required action on the part of the authorities was to be undertaken, to conclude the proceedings under the Act' 1894 by bringing it to its logical end within a reasonable time.
85. No leverage can be granted to the acquiring body for it woke up from slumber after 11 years to revise its request for acquisition of three (3) parcels of land out of five (5) acquired under the old Act' 1894. No aid of Section 24(1)(b) can be provided to the acquiring body to save the acquisition in question from the wrath of sub-section (2) of Section 24. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is a piece of a human rights legislation. It has been enacted with Page 47 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined the object and purpose to adequately compensate and rehabilitate land holders whose lands have been compulsorily acquired by exercising the power of eminent domain of the State. The right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution has been elevated to the level of human rights though not a fundamental right.
86. The long title of the Act' 2013 states that it is an act to ensure a humane participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities etc.; and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families; and make adequate provisions for such affected persons for rehabilitation and resettlement; and to ensure that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development, leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status.
87. The transitional provisions contained in Section 24 are beneficial provisions providing for higher compensation due to change of regime and providing for lapse due to indolence and inaction on the part of the authorities. To give full effect to the provisions contained in Section 24, on the principles of purposive interpretation of beneficial legislation, we may note the observations of the Apex Court in the decision of [Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, (1990) 1 SCC 277] that :-
"16. The paramount object in statutory interpretation is to discover what the legislature intended. This intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text of enactment Page 48 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined in question. That does not mean the text is to be construed merely as a piece of prose, without reference to its nature or purpose. A statute is neither a literary text nor a divine revelation. "Words are certainly not crystals, transparent and unchanged" as Mr Justice Holmes has wisely and properly warned. (Towne v. Eisner [245 US 418, 425 (1918)] ) Learned Hand, J., was equally emphatic when he said: "Statutes should be construed, not as theorems of Euclid, but with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them." (Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage [218 FR 547, 553])"
88. In construing a beneficial provision, the Court has to adopt beneficient rule of construction; and if the Section is capable of two constructions, that construction should be preferred which fulfills the policy of the Act, and is more beneficial to the persons in whose interest the Act has been passed.
89. The principles of statutory construction of social welfare legislation and human rights legislation discussed in Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corpn. [(1985) 4 SCC 71] are :-
"4. The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human rights' legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Liliputian dimensions. In construing these legislations the imposture of literal construction must be avoided and the prodigality of its misapplication must be recognised and reduced. Judges ought to be more concerned with the "colour", the "content" and the "context" of such statutes (we have borrowed the words from Lord Wilberforce's opinion in Prenn v. Simmonds [(1971) 3 All ER 237] ). In the same opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out that law is Page 49 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined not to be left behind in some island of literal interpretation but is to enquire beyond the language, unisolated from the matrix of facts in which they are set; the law is not to be interpreted purely on internal linguistic considerations. In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court [(1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16 : (1981) 1 SCR 789] , we had occasion to say, "Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions."
90. The period of '5 years or more' prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act occurring in sub-section (2) of Section 24 has to be given a purposive interpretation to attract deemed lapse in such cases where the land acquisition/acquiring authority have deliberately delayed in conclusion of the pending proceedings after the enactment of 2013 Act. Our view finds strength from the observations in para '94' in Indore Development Authority (supra), which reads as under :-
"94. Undoubtedly, the 2013 Act has provided safeguards, in the form of higher compensation and provisions for rehabilitation, which are necessary. In that light, the court has to interpret its provisions, to give full and meaningful effect to the legislative intent keeping in mind the language and tenor of the provisions, it is not for the court to legislate. The Court can only iron out creases to clear ambiguity. The intended benefit should not be taken away. At the same time, since the 2013 Act, envisages lapse of acquisitions notified (and in many cases, completed by the issuance of the award) due to Page 50 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined indolence and inaction on the part of the authorities and therefore, intends acquisition at a fast track, the full effect has to be given to the provisions contained in Section 24."
91. As regards the proviso to Section 24(2), in our considered opinion, it would apply in a case where award has been made and possession has been taken bringing the acquisition proceedings to its logical end and there is a delay in depositing compensation in respect of the majority of land holdings, only. A case where both the possession has not been taken and the acquisition proceedings under the Act' 1894 has not been concluded, there is no question of application of the proviso to Section 24(2), as it is part of Section 24(2) and not part of Section 24(1)(b).
92. With the above discussion, we find that the Land Acquisition Act being is an expropriatory legislation, the procedure provided therein has to be strictly adhered to by the acquiring body/Land Acquisition Authority. (Ref:- Dev Sharan v. State of U.P., (2011) 4 SCC 769, Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 1 SCC 728, Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2366)
93. Section 24(2) being a beneficial provision, providing benefits to the land holders in case of lethargy/inaction on the part of the authorities is to lean in favour of the land owners in this case where the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act' 1894, have not been brought to its logical end within a reasonable period of time, after the enactment of the 2013 Page 51 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Act.
94. In view of the above discussion, we find it a fit case for interference. We allow the writ petition by holding that the land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the lands in questions (four plots) belonging to the petitioners herein, viz. Survey No.126/Paiki 2, 126/Paiki 3, 126/Paiki 4 and 129/3 be deemed to have been lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013. The communications issued by the State authorities asking the land owners to receive the compensation and the proceedings for delivery of possession, without adopting due process of law, if taken on 09.12.2024, as agitated before us by the respondents, is liable to be held illegal without any authority of law, inasmuch as, with the deeming fiction of lapse of acquisition proceedings, any subsequent proceedings of taking of possession and deposit of compensation, conducted after 11 years of the commencement of the 2013 Act, would be without any authority of law. The revival of lapsed acquisition proceedings by virtue of the fiction under Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013, for giving effect to the repealed provision of the 1894 Act, is impermissible. The possession of the petitioners in the lands in question being that of lawful occupants having right, title and interest in the lands in question throughout is to be restored by bringing the lands in question to their original nature, as on the date of taking of the alleged possession, i.e. 09.12.2024. The lands in question shall revert back to the petitioners herein, forthwith.
95. It is provided that as the possession of the acquired Page 52 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined lands at the hands of the acquiring body on 09.12.2024, as alleged before us, is nothing but of an unauthorised occupant, they are required to restore the lands in question to their original status and handover peaceful physical and vacant possession of the lands in question to the land owners, forthwith.
96. It is further clarified that as the land acquisition proceedings had not been concluded under the Act' 1894 and stood lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013, inasmuch as, necessary steps have not been taken within a reasonable time (for more than 11 years), there is no further requirement of proceedings for release of the same under Section 48 of the Act' 1894, inasmuch as, the said proceeding would not survive after the commencement of the 2013 Act, w.e.f. 01.01.2014.
97. Further, any permanent damage caused to the lands in question at the ends of the acquiring body, if survive after restoration to the land holders/petitioners, the same may be realised by them by initiating fresh proceedings by availing appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The compliance of this order shall be reported to this Court through the Registrar General.
98. Allowed. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI Page 53 of 53 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Thu Dec 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 19 23:54:29 IST 2025