Treasury deposit is not valid payment under land acquisition law, and Section 24(2) turns on statutory tender and court deposit.

Compensation under the 1894 acquisition law is treated as paid only when it is tendered to the persons interested and, where Section 31(2) applies, deposited in court; a deposit in the Government treasury is not a legal substitute. Applying Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the Court noted that the beneficial provision operates where an award was made five years or more before commencement and physical possession was not taken or compensation was not paid. On the stated facts, possession of open land was shown by panchnama, but treasury deposit still did not satisfy the statutory payment requirement. The acquisition therefore survived the challenge, while the High Court's declaration was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether compensation deposited in the Government treasury could be treated as payment under the acquisition law and whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act despite the award, possession and vesting under the 1894 Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 11, 12, 16, 31 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requires the Collector, on making the award, to tender compensation to the persons interested and, if payment cannot be made because of the contingencies specified in Section 31(2), to deposit the amount in the reference court. Treasury deposit is not a substitute for deposit in court and does not amount to payment for the purpose of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The 2013 Act, being beneficial legislation, applies where an award was made five years or more before commencement but physical possession was not taken or compensation was not paid. On the facts, the Delhi standing order also contemplated payment at or immediately after the award, with treasury deposit only as a residual mode after efforts to secure attendance failed. The Court further held that the panchnama showed that possession of open land had been taken and that the deeming fiction in Section 24(2) nonetheless operates where compensation has not been paid in the manner known to law.

Conclusion: Treasury deposit did not amount to payment, but the acquisition did not survive on the respondents' challenge because the Court upheld the High Court's declaration and dismissed the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, compensation is regarded as paid only when it is tendered and, where required by Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act, deposited in court; deposit in the Government treasury is insufficient.

---