In Brief
This case concerns the interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, specifically where the proviso applies: to Section 24(1)(b) (compensation) or Section 24(2) (lapsing of acquisition). The Supreme Court held that the proviso applies to Section 24(1)(b). When compensation for the majority of landholdings under the repealed 1894 Act has not been deposited, all beneficiaries are entitled to enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act. Reading the proviso as applying to Section 24(2) would arbitrarily prevent lapsing based on compensation deposit status—a contingency unrelated to possession—and would violate the fundamental rule that a proviso cannot nullify the main enactment's substance.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.