In Brief
This case concerned whether land acquisition proceedings were deemed to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Rehabilitation Act when possession was taken but compensation remained unpaid due to disputes among co-owners. The Supreme Court held that for deemed lapse, both conditions must be satisfied: possession not taken AND compensation not paid. Since possession was already taken in 1986, the acquisition could not lapse merely because compensation was disputed. The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority, overruling earlier precedent, and allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's order declaring lapse.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.