Section 24 land acquisition lapse applies only when possession and compensation both remain outstanding, with court restraint time excluded.

Section 24 of the 2013 Act was construed as a transitional provision that triggers lapse only where, for the relevant five-year period, neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid. "Paid" was read as tender of compensation under the 1894 Act and not as deposit in court; the proviso was treated as part of Section 24(2). Drawing a panchnama was accepted as a valid mode of taking possession for acquired land, and such possession vests title in the State. The period covered by an operative interim court order must be excluded from the five-year computation, and Section 24 does not revive stale, barred, or concluded claims.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the word "or" in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be read disjunctively or as "and"/"nor"; (ii) whether "paid" in Section 24(2) includes deposit of compensation in court and whether the proviso to Section 24(2) belongs to Section 24(2) or Section 24(1)(b); (iii) whether drawing of panchnama is a valid mode of taking possession under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (iv) whether the period covered by an interim order of court is to be excluded while computing the five-year period under Section 24(2); (v) whether Section 24 revives stale, barred, or concluded claims.

Issue (i): Whether the word "or" in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be read disjunctively or as "and"/"nor".

Analysis: Section 24 is a transitional provision governing pending acquisitions under the repealed 1894 Act. The text, scheme, and consequences of lapse show that Parliament intended lapse only where both statutory deficiencies coexist, namely non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation, for the relevant five-year period. Reading "or" disjunctively would undermine the saving structure of Section 24(1)(b), unsettle vested acquisitions, and produce anomalous results inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The word "or" in Section 24(2) must be read as "and"/"nor"; lapse occurs only when neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid.

Issue (ii): Whether "paid" in Section 24(2) includes deposit of compensation in court and whether the proviso to Section 24(2) belongs to Section 24(2) or Section 24(1)(b).

Analysis: The word "paid" refers to tender of compensation under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act and does not include deposit in court under Section 31(2). Non-deposit does not itself cause lapse; it attracts interest under Section 34 and, where the proviso applies, enhanced compensation for all beneficiaries. The placement, punctuation, and structure of Section 24 show that the proviso is attached to Section 24(2), not Section 24(1)(b), and operates as an exception within the lapse framework.

Conclusion: "Paid" does not include deposit in court, and the proviso to Section 24(2) is part of Section 24(2), not Section 24(1)(b).

Issue (iii): Whether drawing of panchnama is a valid mode of taking possession under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: Under the 1894 Act, possession is taken in the manner recognized by law for acquired land, and for large or vacant tracts the accepted mode is preparation of a memorandum or panchnama in the presence of witnesses. Once possession is so taken, title vests absolutely in the State free from encumbrances, and any later re-entry does not undo that vesting. Physical occupation by governmental personnel is not required in every case.

Conclusion: Drawing of panchnama is a valid mode of taking possession, and such possession results in vesting in the State.

Issue (iv): Whether the period covered by an interim order of court is to be excluded while computing the five-year period under Section 24(2).

Analysis: The five-year period under Section 24(2) measures default attributable to the acquiring authority. Where possession or payment is prevented by an operative court order, the authority is legally disabled from proceeding, and the period of restraint cannot be counted against it. The principles of actus curiae neminem gravabit, lex non cogit ad impossibilia, and restitution support exclusion of that period.

Conclusion: The period during which an interim order operates must be excluded while computing the five-year period under Section 24(2).

Issue (v): Whether Section 24 revives stale, barred, or concluded claims.

Analysis: Section 24 applies to pending proceedings and does not reopen acquisitions that had long since concluded, where possession had been taken and rights had crystallized. It cannot be used to challenge the legality of completed acquisitions, the mode of deposit after concluded proceedings, or long-settled titles, especially where third-party interests and public infrastructure have intervened. Belated challenges are also barred by delay, laches, waiver, and finality.

Conclusion: Section 24 does not revive stale, barred, or concluded claims.

Final Conclusion: The interpretation of Section 24 was settled in favour of the acquiring authorities and the State, limiting lapse to the narrow class of pending cases where both statutory prerequisites fail after excluding periods of court restraint, while preserving concluded acquisitions and vested titles.

Ratio Decidendi: In transitional land-acquisition matters under Section 24 of the 2013 Act, lapse arises only where, for the relevant five-year period, neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid, "paid" means tender under the 1894 Act, deposits in court or treasury do not by themselves cause lapse, and the period during which an interim judicial order disables action must be excluded.

---