In Brief
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order declaring that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed for failure to pay compensation. The case hinged on interpreting Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which provides for deemed lapse if neither possession nor compensation materialised within five years before 2013. The Court held that 'or' in the statute must be read as 'nor'/'and'—meaning both conditions must be absent for lapse. Since the Government had taken physical possession of the land in 2008, there was no deemed lapse regardless of non-payment. The appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.