In Brief
The Supreme Court held that the proviso in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is a proviso to Section 24(1)(b), not Section 24(2). The Court clarified that Section 24(1) deals with compensation while Section 24(2) addresses lapsing of acquisition proceedings. When an award has been made five or more years before the 2013 Act came into force and physical possession was not taken or compensation not paid, the acquisition lapses regardless of whether majority compensation was deposited. The Court rejected the position that a proviso can nullify the substantive provision of lapsing, emphasizing that provisos cannot defeat the main enactment's object.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.