Land acquisition lapse under section 24(2): treasury deposit is not payment, and court deposit is required to avoid lapse.

Under section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law, compensation is treated as "paid" only when it is tendered and, if payment cannot be made under the 1894 Act scheme, deposited in court in accordance with section 31. Actual receipt by the landowner is not required, but a mere offer or tender is insufficient. A deposit in the government treasury does not amount to payment and cannot prevent lapse. The repeal provision in section 114(2) remains subject to section 24(2), so where the award was made more than five years earlier and possession or payment requirements were not satisfied, lapse operates by statutory fiction.

---

---

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 because the award was made more than five years before commencement of the 2013 Act, possession had not been taken, and compensation had not been paid.

Analysis: Section 24(2) uses the expression "compensation has not been paid" in the setting of the scheme under section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under that scheme, the Collector must tender compensation and, where payment is prevented by the contingencies stated in section 31(2), deposit the amount in court. The word "paid" in section 24(2) does not mean actual receipt by the landowner, nor does it mean a mere offer or tender. It is satisfied only when compensation has been offered and then deposited in court in accordance with the statutory procedure. Deposit in the government treasury is not equivalent to deposit in court and does not amount to payment for section 24(2). The repeal provision in section 114(2) is subject to section 24(2), and the legal fiction of lapse operates once the statutory conditions are met.

Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; the contention that treasury deposit amounted to payment was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and the landowners succeeded, since the acquisition was held to have lapsed by operation of section 24(2).

Ratio Decidendi: For section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, compensation is treated as paid only when it is tendered and deposited in court in accordance with section 31 of the 1894 Act; deposit in the government treasury is insufficient to prevent lapse of the acquisition.

---