Land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) confirmed despite court-ordered stay periods and delayed possession.

Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law was construed according to its plain text, and no exclusion was read in for periods during which proceedings were stayed by court order. The Court held that, because the Act expressly provided stay exclusions in other provisions but not in Section 24(2), casus omissus could not be used to add one. Where the award under the 1894 Act was more than five years old at commencement of the 2013 Act and physical possession had not been taken, the acquisition lapsed; the proviso was treated as relating only to compensation. The proceedings were therefore held to have lapsed notwithstanding interim orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where the award was more than five years old, physical possession had not been taken, and the proceedings had been delayed because of interim orders of court.

Analysis: Section 24(2) was read on its plain language and held not to contain any exclusion for the period during which acquisition proceedings remained stayed by court order. The Act itself made express provision for exclusion of stay periods in other contexts, which showed that the omission in Section 24(2) was deliberate. The Court held that the period of five years could not be extended by adding an exclusion not found in the text, and the doctrine of casus omissus could not be invoked to supply such an exclusion. The proviso to Section 24(2) was treated as relating only to compensation and not as defeating the main enacting part where possession had not been taken. Since the award was made more than five years before commencement of the 2013 Act and physical possession of the lands had not been taken, the conditions for lapse were satisfied.

Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were held to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, notwithstanding the interim court orders.

Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded on the applicability of Section 24(2), and the State was left free to commence fresh acquisition in accordance with the 2013 Act if it chose to do so.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is more than five years old at the commencement of the 2013 Act and physical possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) without excluding the period of court-ordered stay unless the statute expressly provides such exclusion.

---