Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal

Facts

• Multiple land acquisitions were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the 1894 Act) across various states
• The LARR Act 2013 came into force on 1 January 2014, replacing the 1894 Act
• Section 24 of the LARR Act provided for deemed lapse of old acquisitions in certain circumstances
• Landowners contended that their acquisitions had lapsed because compensation had not been deposited in their personal accounts
• Acquiring authorities argued that deposit of compensation in the treasury or court was sufficient

Issue

1. Whether Section 24(2) of the LARR Act 2013 requires both conditions (non-payment of compensation AND non-taking of possession) to be satisfied cumulatively or whether satisfaction of either condition alone triggers deemed lapse.

Held

• Both conditions must be cumulatively satisfied for Section 24(2) to operate; the word "and" is conjunctive, not disjunctive
• Overruled Pune Municipal Corporation v Harakchand Solanki (2014) which had read "or" in place of "and"
• Deposit of compensation in the government treasury or in court under Section 31 of the 1894 Act amounts to payment; personal tendering to landowner is not mandatory
• Physical possession of land by the acquiring authority negates the lapse, even if compensation remains unpaid
• Section 24(2) applies only where the award was made five or more years before the LARR Act commenced

Ratio Decidendi

Section 24(2) of the LARR Act 2013 provides for deemed lapse of old acquisitions only where BOTH conditions are fulfilled: compensation has not been paid (deposit in court or treasury constitutes payment) AND physical possession has not been taken. The provision uses "and" in a conjunctive sense and cannot be read disjunctively. This overrules the interpretation in Harakchand Solanki that treated the conditions as alternatives.