Section 24 requires both possession not taken AND compensation not paid for land acquisition proceedings to lapse

The SC interpreted Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court held that Section 24(2) is a penal provision requiring both possession not taken AND compensation not paid for proceedings to lapse. The word "or" in Section 24(2) should be read as "and." If either possession is taken OR compensation is paid, acquisition does not lapse. The proviso belongs to Section 24(2), not Section 24(1)(b). Section 24 applies only to pending proceedings as of 1.1.2014 and cannot revive concluded or stale claims.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "established or incorporated" in the context of private universities.
2. Interpretation of the conjunction "or" in statutory language.
3. Application of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
4. Consequences of non-deposit of compensation.
5. Impact of interim court orders on the computation of time under Section 24(2).
6. Revival of stale or barred claims under Section 24.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of "established or incorporated" in the context of private universities:
- The Court observed that the term "established or incorporated" in Sections 2(f), 22, and 23 of the UGC Act should be read as "established and incorporated" for private universities. This interpretation ensures that a university must have the necessary infrastructure before being incorporated, aligning with the constitutional scheme and avoiding conflicts between state and central legislation.

2. Interpretation of the conjunction "or" in statutory language:
- The Court discussed various precedents where "or" was interpreted as "and" to avoid absurd results and to align with legislative intent. It concluded that in the context of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, "or" should be read as "and" to ensure that both conditions (non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession) must be met for the acquisition to lapse.

3. Application of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013:
- Section 24(2) provides for the lapse of acquisition proceedings if compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken for five years or more. The Court emphasized that both conditions must be satisfied for the acquisition to lapse. The provision aims to address inaction by authorities and ensure timely completion of acquisition processes.

4. Consequences of non-deposit of compensation:
- The Court clarified that non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of acquisition proceedings. Instead, it attracts higher compensation under the Act of 2013. The obligation to pay is considered fulfilled if the compensation is tendered, even if not accepted by the landowner.

5. Impact of interim court orders on the computation of time under Section 24(2):
- The Court held that the period during which an interim order of the court is in force should be excluded from the computation of the five-year period under Section 24(2). This interpretation aligns with the principle that no party should suffer due to court orders, ensuring that authorities are not penalized for delays caused by legal proceedings.

6. Revival of stale or barred claims under Section 24:
- The Court ruled that Section 24 does not revive stale or barred claims. It applies only to pending proceedings as of January 1, 2014, and does not reopen concluded acquisitions. The provision is not intended to invalidate acquisitions that have been settled or to question the legality of concluded proceedings.

Summary of Key Judgments:
- Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.: Overruled.
- Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association: Overruled.
- Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra: Clarified that the aspect of the proviso to Section 24(2) was not considered.
- Velaxan Kumar: Overruled regarding the mode of taking possession.
- Narmada Bachao Andolan: Overruled regarding the mode of taking possession.

Conclusion:
The Court provided a comprehensive interpretation of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, ensuring that both conditions (non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession) must be met for the acquisition to lapse. It also clarified that interim court orders should be excluded from the computation of the five-year period and that Section 24 does not revive stale claims. The judgments in Pune Municipal Corporation and related cases were overruled to align with this interpretation.

---