JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated and processed by respondents by issuance of a notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No.758, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 03.05.1991 and Declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No.288, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 4.6.1992 and culminating in Award No.10 of 94 in Ref. No.917 of 90 for Kalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme has lapsed by virtue of the acts and omissions of the respondents as well as by operation of Section 24 of Central Act 30 of 2013 and consequently directing the respondents and their officials to refrain from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over land measuring 0.39.52 hectares in S.F. Nos.963/2B2.) 1. Assailing the land acquisition proceedings as having lapsed by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act, 2013’), the present petition has been filed. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that lands measuring 2.88.5 hectares comprised in S.F. No.963/1 and 963/2 of Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore Taluk belonged to one Subbanna Gounder, the father of petitioners 1 to 5 and grandfather of petitioners 5 and 6 and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Whileso, vide G.O. Ms. No.758, Housing & Urban Development Department dated 03.05.1991, notice u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act, 1894’) was issued proposing to acquire lands for the Kalapatti Neighbourhood Housing Scheme, which was thereafter followed up with a Declaration u/s 6 of Act, 1894 on 4.6.1992 and, thereafter, award was passed on 8.6.1994 in Award No.10 of 1994. 3. It is the further averment of the petitioners that till date no compensation has been paid to them and that physical possession of the lands have also not been taken over from the petitioners and that they are in possession of the lands till date. The petitioners have been in possession of the lands since 1.1.2007 on which date, the original land owner, viz., Subbanna Gounder died. The petitioners have been in possession of the lands since 1.1.2007 on which date, the original land owner, viz., Subbanna Gounder died. It is the further averment that originally writ petition was filed by Subbanna Gounder challenging the notification and declaration in W.P. No.9708/1994, which was dismissed by this Court on the ground that award was passed and the petitioner was given liberty to make representation u/s 48-B of Act, 1894. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that several land owners, whose lands were also subjected to acquisition proceedings for the very same neighbourhood scheme, challenged the said acquisition in W.P. Nos.16417/1998, etc., which was allowed by this Court and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed and the further appeal before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The said order came to be passed taking into account that the said neighbourhood scheme had not taken off and had been dropped. 5. It is the further stand of the petitioners that due to giving up of the scheme, several land owners, including the petitioners sold part of their lands and these petitioners sold lands in S.F. No.963/2 measuring 1 acre and 11 cents and 1 acre and 20 cents, which were purchased by third parties through sale deeds dated 27.9.2012. It is the further stand of the petitioners that they are in possession of the remaining extent of lands. It is the further case of the petitioners that they filed representation before the Government u/s 48-B of Act, 1894 for reconveyance of lands comprised in S.F. No.963/1 and 963/2 to an extent of 2.88.5 hectares and in view of no order being passed, a writ petition was also filed in W.P. No.8005/2012 in which this Court, vide its order dated 29.3.2012 directed the respondents therein to dispose of the representation, and by order dated 31.8.2012, the representation was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No.32922 of 2012 challenging the rejection in which this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation insofar as the extent of lands in the holding of the petitioners less the extent already sold. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No.32922 of 2012 challenging the rejection in which this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation insofar as the extent of lands in the holding of the petitioners less the extent already sold. 6. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners once again submitted representation on 30.3.2016 and since no action was taken on the same, the petitioners filed W.P. No.16840 of 2016 in which this Court passed orders permitting the petitioners to file representation for grant of patta before the Tahsildar and also representation before the Government and pursuant to the said order, the petitioners filed representation in which the Revenue Tahsildar granted patta along with No Objection Certificate, but the application of the petitioners u/s 48-B was rejected by the Government vide order dated 11.7.2017. 7. It is the further case of the petitioners that though the scheme was initiated in the year 1990 and in the year 2000 the scheme having been given up, inspite of the award being passed on 8.6.1994, yet physical possession of the lands have never been taken from the petitioners and the possession has remained till date with the petitioners. It is the further case of the petitioners that Act, 2013 having been enacted, non-payment of compensation of not taking possession of the lands attracts Section 24 (2) and, therefore, the land acquisition proceedings stood lapsed. It is the further case of the petitioners that even the earlier writ petition was mistakenly filed under erroneous legal advice without understanding the implication of Section 24 (2) of Act, 2013. Since the lands have not been taken possession and not paid the compensation, the acquisition stood lapsed and for the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is filed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present case stands squarely within the four corners of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority – Vs – Manoharlal & Ors. ( 2020 (8) SCC 129 ). It is the further submission of the learned counsel that neither compensation has been paid nor possession has been taken by the respondents and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings is deemed to have lapsed. 9. ( 2020 (8) SCC 129 ). It is the further submission of the learned counsel that neither compensation has been paid nor possession has been taken by the respondents and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings is deemed to have lapsed. 9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that reconveyance of land u/s 48-B ought to have been considered by the respondents, as the neighbourhood scheme for which the lands were acquired were dropped way back in the year 2000 and, in fact, the acquisition proceedings in respect of adjacent land owners were quashed and such being the case, the representation of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondents. 10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that no material has been placed before the Court to show that possession has been taken by the respondents and in the absence of the same, the only inference that could be drawn is that the petitioners are still in possession and enjoyment of the lands and, therefore, Section 24 (2) of Act, 2013 would stand squarely attracted. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for allowing the writ petition. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions :- i) P.Jayadevan – Vs – State Government & Ors. ( 2014 (4) MLJ 325 ); and ii) IGATE Global Solutions Ltd. – Vs – State of T.N. & Ors. ( 2014 (5) MLJ 663 ) 12. On the above contentions, this Court heard the learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the materials available on record. 13. Though the aforesaid decisions are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however the said decisions would in no way advance the case of the petitioners as the facts in those cases are in no way identical to the case of the petitioners herein. 14. 13. Though the aforesaid decisions are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however the said decisions would in no way advance the case of the petitioners as the facts in those cases are in no way identical to the case of the petitioners herein. 14. The petitioners have been filing writ petitions, one after the other, claiming the very same relief, repeatedly, inspite of rejection of the claim for reconveyance u/s 48-B. The petitioners, through their various writ petitions are seeking the very same relief and after fighting for more than 3 decades, have come before this Court by the present petition on a fresh ground that the acquisition proceedings has lapsed as neither compensation was paid nor possession was taken, in view of Section 24 (2) of At, 2013. In fact, in the year 2016, the petitioners had filed W.P. No.16840/16 before this Court seeking to dispose of their representation dated 30.03.2016, which representation was filed pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P. No.32922/12, and this Court had, by order dated 29.4.16, passed certain orders, which resulted in the rejection of the representation of the petitioners by order dated 11.7.2017. Therefore, repeatedly, the petitioners have been filing representation seeking reconveyance u/s 48-B and to consider the said representation, writ petitions were filed soliciting orders. In the same stretch, the present petition has been filed, but now claiming lapsation of the acquisition proceedings in view of non-payment of compensation and not taking possession of the lands, which attracts Section 24 (2) of Act, 2013. 15. The novel claim has been made by the petitioners in the year 2018 pertaining to the acquisition which had taken place in the year 1990. Though the petitioners had all alone been claiming reconveyance of lands u/s 48-B of Act, 1894, but now claim lapsation of the acquisition proceedings for non-payment of compensation and not taking possession of the lands even after a lapse of four decades. Though the petitioners had all alone been claiming reconveyance of lands u/s 48-B of Act, 1894, but now claim lapsation of the acquisition proceedings for non-payment of compensation and not taking possession of the lands even after a lapse of four decades. In this regard, it is to be pointed out that reconveyance is provided for u/s 48-B of Act, 1894, which is quoted hereunder :- “48-B. Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases.- Where the Government are satisfied that the land vest in the Government under this Act is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose, the Government may transfer such land to the original owner who is willing to repay the amount paid to him under this Act for the acquisition of such land inclusive of the amount referred to in subsection (1-A) of section 23, if any, paid under this Act.” 16. From the above, it is evident that on acquisition, the land vests with the Government and upon following the due process of law, possession is taken by the Government. The claim of the petitioner is that neither compensation has been paid nor possession has been taken and, therefore Section 24 (2) of Act, 2013 comes into operation. 17. However, the contention relating to non-payment of compensation would stand negative from the own admission of the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, in which there is a categorical admission that “the land owner did not receive or accept the compensation as per the Award above said passed by the third respondent herein and the compensation amount has remained unpaid to this day”. From the above it is evident that it is the land owner, who did not receive the compensation and, therefore, the claim that no compensation was paid cannot be sustained. When the land owner, on his own volition, has refused to receive the compensation, he cannot come back and make a claim that compensation was not paid to him. Therefore, the issue relating to non-payment of compensation does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 18. Coming to the aspect of possession, which is claimed to have not been taken, it is to be pointed out that upon acquisition, the land vest with the Government. Therefore, the issue relating to non-payment of compensation does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 18. Coming to the aspect of possession, which is claimed to have not been taken, it is to be pointed out that upon acquisition, the land vest with the Government. The acquisition of lands had started in the year 1990 and only in the year 2012, the petitioners have filed writ petition for reconveyance u/s 48-B. Act, 2013 had come into force on 1.1.2014, but inspite of the same, the petitioners had sought for reconveyance by filing W.P. No.16840 of 2016. In fact, prior to the said writ petition, the earlier representation of the petitioners having been rejected, challenging the said rejection, W.P. No.32922 of 2012 was filed, which was disposed of on 3.3.2016. Curiously, in the said writ petition, the following submissions were made:- “2. In the impugned order, the Government rejected the petitioners request on the ground that the land is absolutely essential for formation of the Kalapatty Neighbourhood Scheme. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent opposes the writ petition and pointed out that the petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands as during the pendency of the request for reconveyance, the petitioners, through their power agent, have sold certain extent of land and also produced the copies of sale deed dated 22.03.2012 & 27.09.2012, registered as Document Nos.2765/12 and 6995/12, respectively. This shows that the property has been sold when it still remained with the Housing Board. 3. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to pursue the matter only to the extent of land which was retained by them. However, it is seen that the petitioners have executed a power of attorney in favour of one G.A. Kumar and G.Vasudevan and this fact has also not been mentioned in the writ petition establishing that these petitioners are guilty of suppression of facts. 4. Writ petitions have been filed on 06.12.2013, when the sales were effected much prior to the date. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, in their individual capacity may be granted liberty to pursue the matter before the Government insofar as the extent of land retained by them as on date.” 19. 4. Writ petitions have been filed on 06.12.2013, when the sales were effected much prior to the date. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, in their individual capacity may be granted liberty to pursue the matter before the Government insofar as the extent of land retained by them as on date.” 19. From the aforesaid order, it is evident that the petitioners have not taken any defence that the lands are still in their possession. But the petitioners have sought liberty of the Court to pursue the matter in their individual capacity seeking reconveyance, due to certain suppression of facts, which was granted by this Court. This clearly shows that the lands were not in possession of the petitioners. Further, if really the lands were in the possession of the petitioners, there would have been no occasion to claim reconveyance of lands u/s 48-B. Reconveyance could be sought for only in respect of the lands which have been possessed by the respondents. In the case on hand, repeatedly, the petitioners have sought for reconveyance and, in fact, have sold certain extent of lands, when such lands vested with the Housing Board upon acquisition. Such being the case, when the petitioner claims reconveyance, necessarily the inference that could be drawn is that the respondents have taken possession of the lands necessitating the petitioners to seek for reconveyance. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Indore Development Authority case (supra) assumes significance, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “362. We are of the considered opinion that Section 24 cannot be used to revive dead and stale claims and concluded cases. They cannot be inquired into within the purview of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The provisions of Section 24 do not invalidate the judgments and orders of the Court, where rights and claims have been lost and negative. There is no revival of the barred claims by operation of law. Thus, stale and dead claims cannot be permitted to be canvassed on the pretext of enactment of Section 24. In exceptional cases, when in fact, the payment has not been made, but possession has been taken, the remedy lies elsewhere if the case is not covered by the proviso. Thus, stale and dead claims cannot be permitted to be canvassed on the pretext of enactment of Section 24. In exceptional cases, when in fact, the payment has not been made, but possession has been taken, the remedy lies elsewhere if the case is not covered by the proviso. It is the Court to consider it independently not under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act.” * *  *  *   *   *   *   * 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013. 2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed. 3. The word or used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as nor or as and. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Nondeposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. 5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. 6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b). 7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2). 8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. 9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.” (Emphasis Supplied) 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has categorically held that deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. From the above, it is evident that there should be satisfaction of either of the limbs of the acquisition proceedings, viz., either taking of possession or payment of compensation in which circumstances, the acquisition proceedings would not get lapsed. 22. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that stale and dead claims relating to concluded cases cannot be brought with the ambit of Section 24 (2) so as to revive the same and reap the benefit of Section 24. Orders which have negative the rights of the claimants cannot be revived as there is no revival of barred claims by operation of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also further held that the obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31 (1). As noted above, the affidavit of the petitioners itself reveal that the petitioners refrained from receiving the compensation amount. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the payment of compensation mandated u/s 31 (1) has not been complied with. Land owners, who failed to receive the compensation amount tendered to them cannot take umbrage u/s 24 (2) of the Act claiming that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. 23. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the payment of compensation mandated u/s 31 (1) has not been complied with. Land owners, who failed to receive the compensation amount tendered to them cannot take umbrage u/s 24 (2) of the Act claiming that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. 23. In the case on hand, even a cursory glance at the sequence of events suggests that more than once, the representation of the petitioners for reconveyance of the lands was negatived by the Government. That being the case, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the decision of the Government to hold the said lands, more so, when the acquisition is of the year 1991 and possession of the lands have also been taken by the Government. Therefore, the claim has become stale and, therefore, it cannot be revived by the application of Section 24 of Act, 2013. 24. The petitioners, on their own volition having refused to receive the compensation and also the fact that they had sought for reconveyance of land, which only go to show that possession has been taken, it manifestly turns out that the twin conditions provided u/s 24 (2) of Act, 2013 have been complied with and the petitioners cannot claim that no compensation has been paid and possession has also not been taken and, therefore, the benefit available to them u/s 24 (2) of Act, 2013 should be given to them. 25. Further, it is to be pointed out that Act, 1894 having since been repealed, the petitioners also cannot claim reconveyance of land and no reconveyance of land is permitted under Act, 2013, as the lands were acquired under Act, 1894. 26. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is devoid of merits and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.