Land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) rejected; possession, compensation, and excluded court-order periods governed the result.

Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law was applied in line with Indore Development Authority, under which acquisition does not lapse where possession has been taken or compensation has been paid or tendered, and time covered by interim court orders is excluded from the five-year computation. The High Court's lapse finding, based on a contrary view, was set aside. As the writ petitions also raised other substantive challenges to the acquisition that had not been decided, the matters were remitted for fresh adjudication on all remaining issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (ii) Whether the writ petitions should be remanded for decision on the remaining issues not adjudicated by the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Analysis: The governing law laid down in Indore Development Authority was applied. Under that construction of Section 24, there is no lapse where possession has been taken or compensation has been paid or tendered, and the period covered by interim orders must be excluded while computing the five-year period. The finding of lapse recorded by the High Court rested on a view that no longer represented the law.

Conclusion: The declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) was held to be unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions should be remanded for decision on the remaining issues not adjudicated by the High Court.

Analysis: The writ petitions had raised multiple substantive challenges to the acquisition, including issues touching the validity of notifications, possession, urgency, compensation, and the effect of proceedings under the land reforms law. As the High Court had decided only the lapse question and recorded no findings on the other issues, a fresh adjudication on all surviving issues was required.

Conclusion: The matters were remitted to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision on all remaining issues, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgments were quashed, the lapse finding was rejected, and the writ petitions were sent back for full merits consideration on the issues left undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 24(2) does not cause lapse where possession has been taken or compensation has been paid or tendered, and the period covered by court orders must be excluded in computing the statutory period.

---