JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioners in both these writ petitions are common. In W.P.No.353/2018, there are six respondents, out of which respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 are arrayed as respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.No.1779/2018. The pleadings of parties in both the writ petitions are identical. 2. The petitioners' case is thus: (a) The petitioners 1 to 5 are legal heirs of one Kundrapu Appala Naidu and 6th petitioner is the son of late Koruprolu Dalayya. Kundrapu Appala Naidu and Koruprolu Dalayya jointly purchased an agricultural land in an extent of Ac.3.00 cents vide Patta No.8 of Bhimavarapukota, Kotanandur Mandal, East Godavari District under a registered Sale Deed dtd. 30/5/1955 vide document No.1764/1955. Ever since they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land. (b) The 3rd respondent acquired an extent of Ac.7.78 cents of land covered by Sy.nos.47/1A, 47/1B and 47/3A in an extent of Ac.1.36 cents, Ac.0.90 cents and Ac.0.72 cents belong to the petitioners and some other lands of others for issuing house site pattas to the houseless poor. In Sec. 4(1) notification, the name of Koruprolu Dalayya i.e., father of 6th petitioner was shown, however, both the joint owners had agreed for proposed acquisition. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent passed an Award No.12/83 dtd. 8/11/1983 fixing compensation of Rs.20,150.00 for the joint land of the petitioners. Though award was passed, neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid to the original owners or to their LRs i.e., petitioners. While so, the original owners of the land died in the year 1999 and ever since the petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the acquired land without any let of hindrance. (c) While so, the 4th respondent in W.P.No.353/2018 i.e., Gram Panchayat of Bhimavarapukota proposed to lay the road through the lands of petitioners and made an attempt in that regard on 25/12/2017 without following due procedure. The petitioners resisted the said illegal act of 4th respondent. The petitioners made a representation to 2nd respondent informing the highhanded act of the 4th respondent. They also made a representation dtd. 27/12/2017 to the Tahsildar, Kotanandur Mandal (6th respondent) under the Right to Information Act seeking information as to whom the compensation was allegedly paid, but till now there is no information from the said authority. However, the Tahsildar confirmed the possession of the petitioners over the subject land. They also made a representation dtd. 27/12/2017 to the Tahsildar, Kotanandur Mandal (6th respondent) under the Right to Information Act seeking information as to whom the compensation was allegedly paid, but till now there is no information from the said authority. However, the Tahsildar confirmed the possession of the petitioners over the subject land. (d) Petitioners' case ultimately is that though award was passed in the year 1983, neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid to the original owners or their LRs and on the other hand, the petitioners have been in continuous possession of the subject land. Therefore, in terms of Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (for short, 'the RFCTLARR Act'), the acquisition so far as the petitioners' land is concerned, lapsed and therefore, the respondents cannot have any right to meddle with the petitioners' properties. If the respondent authorities require the land of the petitioners for laying the road or for some other public purpose, they should follow due process of law. (e) With the above averments initially W.P.No.353/2018 was filed seeking the relief of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 4 and 5 therein proposing to lay road in the petitioners' land without following due procedure as illegal and to consequently direct the respondents to follow the procedure if they want to lay the road. 3. Subsequently the petitioners filed W.P.No.1779/2018 seeking mandamus declaring the land acquisition Award No.12/83 dtd. 8/11/1983 passed by 3rd respondent insofar as the land situated in Sy.nos.47/1A, 47/1B and 47/3A in an extent of Ac. Ac.1.36 cents, Ac.0.90 cents and Ac.0.72 cents of Bhimavarapukota village is null and unenforceable and lapsed in the light of Sec. 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to issue Pattadar Passbook and Title Deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of their land. 4. The 3rd respondent filed counter in both the writ petitions contending thus: (a) An extent of Ac.7.78 cents situated in Sy.Nos.47/1A, 47/1B, 47/3A, 48/1, 48/3, 48/4, 48/5, 48/13, 48/6, 48/7, 48/8, 156/1, 156/2, 156/3 in Bhimavarapukota Village of Kotanandur Mandal was acquired under Award No.12/83 dtd. 8/11/1983 for providing house sites to the EBC families by following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act. 8/11/1983 for providing house sites to the EBC families by following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act. The present writ petitions pertain to lands acquired in Sy.Nos.47/1A, 47/1B and 47/3A for total extent of Ac.2.17 cents. (b) The contention of the petitioners that though award being passed neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid to the petitioners is pulpably false. The record shows that the compensation of Rs.20,150.50 ps was fixed for the aforesaid lands of the petitioners. An amount of Rs.8426.65 ps was already paid on 4/12/1988 to the owner Koruprolu Dalayya as 1st instalment. Further, searches are being conducted to trace out the connected records to know whether the balance amount of compensation was paid or not as the records were dislocated due to the shifting of RDO office, Peddapuram to a new building since the existing building is in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, it is not correct to say that compensation was not paid. (c) It is further stated that after passing of the award, layout was prepared in the entire acquired land including the present subject land and house site pattas were issued to 137 beneficiaries in the year 1986. Further, the corresponding changes have been incorporated in the fair Adangals in respect of the subject lands mentioning therein as house sites. At present, the village revenue accounts show the subject lands as house sites. Therefore, no Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds were issued to the petitioners. Thus, as per Adangals, in respect of the following Faslis the land in Sy.Nos.47/1A, 47/1B to an extent of Ac.2.08 cents is noted as house sites. (d) In some earlier writ petitions, the factum of acquisition and consequent vesting of the land in the Government was observed by this Court. That apart, letter was addressed to the State Bank of India, Peddapuram and Andhra Bank, Peddapuram to inform the particulars of the amount paid to the land owners as per the Registers available in the office of the 3rd respondent. However, the Managers of those banks informed that old records were destroyed upto the year 2006 as per the instructions of the higher authorities and therefore, those particulars could not be traced out. On verification of the records, it was noticed that the connected records were not available either in the office of the Collector, RDO's office or Tahsildar's office, Kotanandur. On verification of the records, it was noticed that the connected records were not available either in the office of the Collector, RDO's office or Tahsildar's office, Kotanandur. Even though efforts were made to trace out the record from (i) Junior Civil Judge's Court, Tuni (ii) Senior Civil Judge's Court, Peddapuram (iii) Senior Civil Judge's Court, Pithapuram (iv) III Additional District Judge's Court, Kakinada and (v) District Court, Rajahmundry, the relevant information could not be traced out. However, the available record would show that possession was taken and necessary changes have been incorporated in the revenue records and compensation was paid. (e) While so, the Grama Panchayat of Bhimavarapukota vide resolution No.29 dtd. 29/11/2017 has proposed to form an approach road through Sy.nos.47/1A and 47/1B. In that regard, in respect of the representation made by 3rd petitioner before the Tahsildar, Kotanandur, an endorsement vide Ref.No.B/392/2018 dtd. 6/1/2018 was issued to the petitioner informing that the land in Sy.No.47/1A to an extent of Ac.2.08 cents is classified as house sites and R.S.No.47/1B to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents is classified as way to the house sites as per the fair Adangal of Bhimavarapukota, which land was acquired for house sites and that these lands are under the encroachment of Koruprolu Subbarao, s/o. Dalayya (6th petitioner). The distribution of house sites on 10/8/1982 would show that the possession of the land was taken over. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they are in possession of the subject lands is not correct. For these reasons lapse of award under Sec. 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act does not arise. (f) It is further submitted that as per the report of the Tahsildar, Kotananduru, the total extent of land in Sy.No.47/1A is Ac.2.08 cents and the following is the present situation of the land: 1. An extent of Ac.0.16 cents was occupied by Sri Koruprolu Subbarao, S/o. Daliyya and related Jonnagaddi crop. 2. One Smt. Molleti Ramayyamma, W/o. Narayana Murthy has constructed tiled house in an extent of Ac.0.01 1/2 cents with help of government housing scheme. 3. Smt. Kundrapu Appalanaidu, S/o. Appalanaidu, 3rd petitioner has occupied Ac.0.08 cents and raised Coconut trees since last one year. 4. The remaining land in S.No.47/1A is vacant on ground and as per revenue records the survey number was noted as house sites. 3. Smt. Kundrapu Appalanaidu, S/o. Appalanaidu, 3rd petitioner has occupied Ac.0.08 cents and raised Coconut trees since last one year. 4. The remaining land in S.No.47/1A is vacant on ground and as per revenue records the survey number was noted as house sites. It is further submitted that Ac.0.09 cents of S.No.47/1B is on ground vacant and utilized as approach road. Hence, considering all the above facts the writ petitions may be dismissed. 5. W.P.No.17691/2018 This writ petition is filed by the residents of Bhimavarapukota village against the official respondents 1 to 6 and unofficial respondent No.7 seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 3 to 5 i.e., R.D.O, Peddapuram, Tahsildar, Kotananduru Mandal and Gram Panchayat of Bhimavarapukota in not taking action against the illegal acts of 7th respondent in blocking the road in Sy.Nos.47/1A, 47/1B and 47/3A of Bhimavarapukota village and denying the ingress and egress to the agricultural fields of the petitioners and other farmers of the village as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 6 to see that the existing road in Sy.Nos.47/1A, 47/1B and 47/3A of Bhimavarapukota village may not be blocked under the influence of 7th respondent by taking stringent action against 7th respondent. (a) The petitioners' case precisely is that they are the petty farmers having small extents of agricultural land in Bhimavarapukota village and they are eking out their livelihood by doing cultivation. Abutting to their agricultural lands, the other farmers are having lands to an extent of more than 200 Acres. All of them are having a road to enter their lands. Since the time of their forefathers, the petitioners and other farmers are using the said road as an approach road to their lands. However, recently the 7th respondent by using pressure and undue influence over the respondents 3 to 6 blocked the said road and denied the petitioners and others the ingress and egress, due to which all of them are facing lot of hardship. If they are denied access, they have to travel around 6 KMs to enter their fields to conduct agricultural operations. The petitioners brought said fact to the notice of the respondents 3 to 6, but they did not take any action. If they are denied access, they have to travel around 6 KMs to enter their fields to conduct agricultural operations. The petitioners brought said fact to the notice of the respondents 3 to 6, but they did not take any action. On 13/5/2018, when the petitioners tried to pass through the road, the 7th respondent dug the road with JCB, against which action, the petitioners gave representation to the respondents 4 to 6, but of no avail. Hence, the writ petition. 6. The 4th respondent filed counter stating thus: (a) In the year 1983, an extent of Ac.7.78 cents situated in Sy.Nos.47/1A, 47/1B, 47/3A, 48/1, 48/3, 48/4, 48/5, 48/13, 48/6, 48/7, 48/8, 156/1, 156/2, 156/3 of Bhimavarapukota village was acquired for providing house sites to 137 eligible EBC beneficiaries under Award No.12/83 dtd. 8/11/1983 following due procedure. A layout has been prepared and house site pattas were distributed. Possession was taken and necessary changes have been incorporated in the revenue records as house sites in Sy.Nos.47/1A, 47/1B and 47/3A of Bhimavarapukota village. However, no houses were constructed by the patta holders in their plots as the land owners obstructed them not to construct the houses on the plea that no compensation was paid to them by the Government. In the meanwhile, the Gram Panchayat of Bhimavarapukota village proposed to lay an approach road through the land in Rs. No.47/1A and 47/1B and passed resolution No.29 dtd. 29/11/2017. In that context, the present writ petition is filed. (b) It is further contended that as soon as the land was vested in the Government after acquisition, house sites to EBC beneficiaries were distributed. As such automatically land was vested in the Gram Panchayat for making development of roads, providing electricity etc. at the Panchayat level. In that context, the Gram Panchayat must have passed resolution for formation of approach road through Rs. No.47/1A. The illegal acts of 7th respondent in blocking road did not come to the notice of the respondents 3 to 5. Therefore, taking up the action against the 7th respondent does not arise. On enquiry, it is revealed that the Gram Panchayat started formation of the approach road on the existing road, but the unofficial respondent obstructed the formation of the road on the unreasonable causes and stopped the work. Therefore, taking up the action against the 7th respondent does not arise. On enquiry, it is revealed that the Gram Panchayat started formation of the approach road on the existing road, but the unofficial respondent obstructed the formation of the road on the unreasonable causes and stopped the work. The official respondents are not against the proposal of the Gram Panchayat and hence, the contents in this counter may be taken into consideration. (c) The 4th respondent inspected the land in dispute and noticed that there are no obstacles in the existing road, which is said to have been used since the time of the forefathers of the petitioners and which is free from encroachment and available to the farmers to travel on the road as usual. Hence, the writ petitions may be disposed of. 7. Heard arguments of Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.Nos.353 & 1779 of 2018 and Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.No.17691/2018 and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. 8. Both the learned counsel reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. The main plank of argument of Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao is that though Award No.12/83 was passed on 8/11/1983, however, it was not implemented in letter and spirit insofar as the land losers are concerned, inasmuch as, the acquisition authorities have neither paid the compensation nor taken physical possession of lands of the petitioners and thereby the petitioners and their predecessors have been in effective physical possession and enjoyment of the lands till date. He would further argue, in the light of the conduct of the acquisition authorities, the acquisition proceedings insofar as the lands of the petitioners are concerned shall be deemed to have lapsed in terms of Sec. 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act. For this proposition of law, he placed reliance on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal., (2020) 8 SCC 129 Learned counsel would strenuously argue that the burden of proving the facts that the acquisition was undertaken by following due process of law and that due compensation was paid and physical possession of the acquired property was taken over heavily rests on the acquisition authorities. On this aspect, he placed reliance on D.B.Basnett (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim, (2020) 4 SCC 572 . On this aspect, he placed reliance on D.B.Basnett (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim, (2020) 4 SCC 572 . (a) Learned counsel would argue that though the 3rd respondent in its counter claimed that the physical possession of petitioners' lands was taken over and compensation was paid, however, no cogent material is placed before the Court. In expatiation, he would submit that except making a unilateral mutation of revenue records behind the back of petitioners showing their lands as house sites, the revenue authorities could not place before this Court the relevant material showing the crucial particulars i.e., delivery panchanama and particulars of the beneficiaries to whom the pattas were allegedly given in respect of the lands of the petitioners. He would submit that the copies of the pattas were not produced to manifest that the physical possession of the land was taken over and house site pattas were distributed. He would further submit that if really physical possession was taken over, the acquisition authorities must be able to produce possession delivery panchanama containing the signatures of the petitioners or their predecessors in title. He would submit that such record was not produced before this Court. Therefore, mere effecting the mutation in the revenue records will not amount to positive proof of taking delivery of the lands. Learned counsel would vehemently argue that the respondents in their counter have admitted that the 6th petitioner is in possession of the subject lands, of course by claiming that he forcibly trespassed into the land subsequently. Learned counsel argued that it is only when the revenue authorities could able to establish that physical possession was taken over by following due procedure and produced the records, that there may be a scope for them to contend that subsequently the petitioners have trespassed into the acquired lands. When the respondents utterly failed in that regard, such a contention of subsequent trespass is of no avail to them. Even assuming the petitioners have committed trespass, why the authorities have not initiated any proceedings for removal of the encroachment is not known. Therefore, the contention of trespass into the subject lands by the petitioners is a myth and concoction. He would thus emphasize that the petitioners have been in lawful possession of their lands since the authorities have not taken physical possession pursuant to the acquisition. Therefore, the contention of trespass into the subject lands by the petitioners is a myth and concoction. He would thus emphasize that the petitioners have been in lawful possession of their lands since the authorities have not taken physical possession pursuant to the acquisition. (b) Nextly, regarding the payment of compensation, learned counsel argued that neither the petitioners nor their predecessors were paid the compensation. In this regard, the contention of the respondents is dubious, inasmuch as, at one breath they claimed that the entire compensation was paid but on the other, they would claim that out of compensation of Rs.20,150.50 ps, the 1st instalment of Rs.8426.65 ps was paid to Koruprolu Dalayya, father of 6th petitioner. The said contention is totally false since the authorities have not produced any plausible record. Even assuming that part payment of Rs.8426.65 ps was made is true, still such superficial payment will not exclude the operation of Sec. 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act. Learned counsel would submit that when the Gram Panchayat authorities have unjustly and illegally attempted to lay road, the petitioners have resisted their acts to protect their legitimate right in the lands. He thus prayed to allow the writ petitions. 9. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would argue that about 7.78 cents of land covered by different survey numbers including the land of the petitioners was acquired under Award No.12/83 dtd. 8/11/1983 for providing house sites to EBC families by following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and physical possession of the land was taken over and lay out was prepared for 137 plots and house site pattas were also distributed. That apart, in the concerned revenue records mutation was effected showing the acquired lands as house site pattas. Nextly, he would submit that the petitioners' land of Ac.2.08 cents is concerned, compensation of Rs.20,150.50 ps was fixed and paid to the registered owner Koruprolu Dalayya. Thus, possession was taken over and compensation was also paid. He would further argue that writ petitions are filed belatedly i.e., 35 years after the acquisition and in the meanwhile, due to natural process, some records were destroyed and some records were misplaced during the relocation of RDO's office, Peddapuram to a new building from the existing dilapidated building. Thus, possession was taken over and compensation was also paid. He would further argue that writ petitions are filed belatedly i.e., 35 years after the acquisition and in the meanwhile, due to natural process, some records were destroyed and some records were misplaced during the relocation of RDO's office, Peddapuram to a new building from the existing dilapidated building. Learned Government Pleader would contend that the copies of the available record are produced which would amply show that the mutation was effected showing the petitioners' lands as house sites and first installment of Rs.8426.65 ps was paid to K.Dalayya. In the teeth of these facts, the contra argument of the petitioners is untenable. Learned Government Pleader would further argue that subsequent to the distribution of house site pattas, the petitioners and some others raised an untenable contention that compensation was not paid to them and obstructed the allottees from constructing the houses and some of them including the petitioners, trespassed into a part of acquired land, whose particulars are mentioned in the counter. Such a trespass will not confer any right on them to make any legitimate claim. He would further submit that now the Gram Panchayat of Bhimavarapukota village proposed to lay an approach road in S.No.47/1B and petitioners without having any legal right causing obstructions. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 10. Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel, argued on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.17691/2018 stating that the approach road is the only road available to the petitioners and some other farmers to reach their agricultural lands of more than Ac.200.00 cents in extent. When Gram Panchayat proposed to lay the Pacca Road, the 7th respondent has unduly obstructed the authorities and in spite of representations given by the petitioners, the official respondents have not taken any action. 11. The points for consideration in the batch of writ petitions are: (1) Whether the land acquisition proceedings covered by Award No.12/83 dtd. 8/11/1983 relating to petitioners' land in an extent of Ac.2.17 cents in S.Nos.47/1A, 47/1B and 47/3A are lapsed for non-payment of compensation and not taking of physical possession as contended by the petitioners in W.P.No.353/2018 and W.P.No.1779/2018? (2) If point No.1 is held affirmatively, whether Bhimavarapukota Gram Panchayat / 5th respondent in W.P.No.17691/2018 has right to lay approach road on a part of above subject lands without following due process of law? (2) If point No.1 is held affirmatively, whether Bhimavarapukota Gram Panchayat / 5th respondent in W.P.No.17691/2018 has right to lay approach road on a part of above subject lands without following due process of law? (3) To what relief? 12. Point No.1: (a) The admitted facts are that the petitioners' predecessors namely Kundrapu Appala Naidu and Koruprolu Dalayya jointly purchased about an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Bhimavarapukota Village under a registered Sale Deed dtd. 30/5/1955. While so, for the purpose of providing house sites to the EBC families, at the instance of Government, the 3rd respondent initiated land acquisition proceedings and acquired an extent of Ac.7.78 cents in different survey numbers located in Bhimavarapukota Village of Kotanandur Mandal, under Award No.12/83 dtd. 8/11/1983 as follows: (b) It should be noted that so far as the subject land of Ac.2.17 cents covered by Sy.Nos.47/1A, 47/1B and 47/3A is concerned, out of joint purchasers, only the name of Koruprolu Dalayya is shown in the proceedings and compensation of Rs.20,150.50 ps was fixed for the said land. As per the award proceedings, compensation fixed for the acquired lands would be paid in five equal instalments and first instalment was being paid at the time of passing of the award. It is further stated that the balance amount will be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. (c) Be that as it may, the contention of the petitioners is that though award was passed as noted supra, neither physical possession of the subject lands was taken nor compensation was paid to the original owners or their legal heirs i.e., the petitioners. However, the authorities have taken possession and paid compensation for the lands acquired in other survey numbers and utilized the same for public purpose. It is also their case that the original owners died in the year 1999 and the petitioners have been in possession. Thus in essence their contention is that since physical possession was not taken and compensation was not paid till date, the acquisition insofar as petitioners' land is concerned, lapsed in terms of Sec. 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act. The respondents denied the said contention and argued that possession was taken and compensation was paid but the petitioners have illegally trespassed into some extent of the acquired land on an untenable contention that compensation was not paid. The respondents denied the said contention and argued that possession was taken and compensation was paid but the petitioners have illegally trespassed into some extent of the acquired land on an untenable contention that compensation was not paid. (d) In that view, it is profitable to extract Sec. 24 of the RFCTLARR Act here. "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (a) where no award under Sec. 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said Sec. 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said Sec. 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Sec. 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (e) Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 24 is germane for our discussion. This sub-sec. (e) Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 24 is germane for our discussion. This sub-sec. depicts the limited retrospectivity of RFCTLARR Act, inasmuch as, the new Act of 2013 applies to the cases where, the land acquisition proceedings were though initiated under old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and awards were passed five years or prior to the commencement of the RFCTLARR Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, in which case, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and appropriate Government, if chooses, shall initiate the land acquisition proceedings afresh in accordance with the RFCTLARR Act. 13. While so, the controversy triggered was in respect of the interpretation of the conjunction "or" used in between the two clauses 'physical possession of the land has not been taken' and 'the compensation has not been paid'. Simply, the controversy is whether one of the two or both the conditions shall be fulfilled for lapse of the acquisition proceedings undertaken and award being passed under the old Act. A five Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has given the correct interpretation of Sec. 24 of the RFCTLARR Act in Indore Development Authority's case (1 supra). The Apex Court upon considering various aspects and decisions, has ultimately held as follows: 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 1. Under the provisions of Sec. 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1/1/2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 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 Sec. 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 3. The word 'or' used in Sec. 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act 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. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act 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 Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Sec. 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Sec. 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Sec. 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Sec. 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit 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 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Sec. 4 of the 1894 Act. 5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Sec. 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Sec. 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Sec. 31(1). The land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 6. The provison to Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Sec. 24(2), not part of Sec. 24(1)(b). 7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Sec. 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. 6. The provison to Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Sec. 24(2), not part of Sec. 24(1)(b). 7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Sec. 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Sec. 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Sec. 24(2). 8. The provisions of Sec. 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 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned 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. Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Sec. 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act, 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." 14. Thus, in the above judgment, the Apex Court has observed that the word "or" used in Sec. 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as "and" meaning thereby the deemed lapse of the land acquisition proceedings would take place where the possession of the land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid, there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid but possession has not been taken, then again there is no lapse. It is on the touchstone of this observation of the Apex Court, the case on hand has to be evaluated and decided. In other words, in case possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid, there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid but possession has not been taken, then again there is no lapse. It is on the touchstone of this observation of the Apex Court, the case on hand has to be evaluated and decided. As already stated supra, the vehement contention of the petitioners is that neither possession taken nor compensation paid by the authorities and hence, the deemed lapse under Sec. 24(2) applies. The respondents refute the same. 15. The first condition is about taking of physical possession of the acquired property of Ac.2.17 cents in Sy.Nos.47/1A, 47/1B and 47/3A. In the Indore Development Authority's case (1 supra), the Apex Court inter alia, in issue No.4 dealt with the aspect taking of possession under the Land Acquisition Act. In that context, the Apex Court observed: "247. The question which arises whether there is any difference between taking possession under the 1894 Act and the expression "physical possession" used in Sec. 24(2). As a matter of fact, what was contemplated under the 1894 Act, by taking the possession meant only physical possession of the land. Taking over the possession under the 2013 Act always amounted to taking over physical possession of the land. When the State Government acquires land and draws up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking the physical possession of the land. On the large chunk of property or otherwise which is acquired, the Government is not supposed to put some other person or the police force in possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the land is used by it for the purpose for which it has been acquired. The Government is not supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining possession thereof. Thereafter, if any further retaining of land or any re-entry is made on the land or someone starts cultivation on the open land or starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed to be the trespasser on land which is in possession of the State. The possession of trespasser always inures for the benefit of the real owner that is the State Government in the case." (Emphasis Supplied) 16. The possession of trespasser always inures for the benefit of the real owner that is the State Government in the case." (Emphasis Supplied) 16. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the mode of taking possession under the old Act and as contemplated under Sec. 24(2) of the new Act is by drawing an inquest report / Memorandum i.e., possession delivery panchanama. It has now to be seen what material has been placed by the respondent authorities to show that the acquired property was taken possession of. Admittedly, the total land acquired under Award No.12/83 is Ac.7.78 cents. Even according to the petitioners, except their land of Ac.2.17 cents, the respondent authorities have taken possession of the remaining Ac.5.00 cents and odd and paid compensation to the concerned land owners. Be that as it may, the 3rd respondent along with his counter, produced some material papers to prove that the possession was taken and compensation was paid. Hence, the same is perused. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent did not produce the copy of the delivery panchanama. His explanation in the counter is that the records in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram/3rd respondent were dislocated due to shifting of the office from the existing dilapidated building to a new building and thus the available record could only be produced. On perusal of the copies of the record, the copy of the fair Adangal relating to Bhimavarapukota Village of Kotanandur Mandal shows that the land of Ac.2.08 cents in Sy.No.47/1B and Ac.0.09 cents in S.No.47/1B which originally stood in the name of Koruprolu Dalayya was rounded off and mentioned as house sites as per the proceedings in 8A No.1/95 dtd. 19/9/85. The change as aforesaid was effected by Mandal Deputy Surveyor (MDS) of Kotanandur Mandal. The 3rd respondent also filed a copy of layout sketch showing about 137 plots laid in the acquired land. He also filed list of 137 beneficiaries for granting house site pattas. That apart, he filed a copy of house site patta granted in favour of Smt. Neeli Achiraju, w/o. Eswarudu of Bhimavarapukota Village who was granted Ac.0.03 cents of house site in S.No.47/1A i.e., relating to the subject land. These are the documents filed by the 3rd respondent in his endeavour to show that physical possession of the entire acquired land including the land of the petitioners was taken over. These are the documents filed by the 3rd respondent in his endeavour to show that physical possession of the entire acquired land including the land of the petitioners was taken over. As already stated supra, the 3rd respondent did not produce the delivery panchanama on the ground that the relevant record was dislocated and could not be traced. Now the crucial aspect is whether by virtue of the aforesaid record, physical possession of the subject land can be said to have been taken over by the authorities. In my consideration, when the Hon'ble Apex Court referred inquest report / Memorandum i.e., delivery panchanama as a mode of taking possession under the land acquisition proceedings, it serves as primary and crucial evidence of taking delivery of possession. However, in a given case, when the aforesaid document is not available, it does not mean that concerned Court is prohibited from looking into the other available materials to come to a conclusion on the aspect of delivery of possession. In this case, the acquisition proceedings have taken place in the year 1983 and the writ petitions are filed in the year 2018. In between, 35 years have elapsed. The plea of 3rd respondent is that in the natural course, some records were destroyed by the concerned offices and so far as the office of 3rd respondent is concerned, due to its dislocation from one building to another, the concerned record was misplaced and could not be traced. This aspect has not been strongly opposed by the petitioners. Be that as it may, the available records and admission of the parties would show that the acquisition was made for the entire extent of Ac.7.78 cents without omitting any extent in the middle. Further, even as per the admission of petitioners, except their extent, the remaining Ac.5.00 cents and odd was acquired and physical possession was taken, compensation was paid to concerned owners and the land was put to public use. That being so, there is no reason why the authorities leave the remaining Ac.2.17 cents of the petitioners without taking possession. There is no logic for such omission when we believe that entire Ac.7.78 cents as proposed was acquired. Therefore, the contention of the acquisition authorities that the entire land including the land of petitioners was taken possession appears to be more plausible than the contention of the petitioners. There is no logic for such omission when we believe that entire Ac.7.78 cents as proposed was acquired. Therefore, the contention of the acquisition authorities that the entire land including the land of petitioners was taken possession appears to be more plausible than the contention of the petitioners. That apart, the other available record also supports this proposition. In the fair adangal relating to Bhimavarapukota village, which is a permanent record, necessary changes have been made in respect of the holding of Koruprolu Dalayya and mentioned as house sites wayback in the year 1985 itself. Even in cultivation adangal copies for the Fasli 1428 also, the subject lands were recorded as houses. Added to it, the 3rd respondent filed the list of 137 house site beneficiaries. They also filed layout diagram showing 137 house plots in the subject lands. Above all, he filed copy of one house site patta said to be issued in favour of one beneficiary viz., Smt. Neeli Achiraju, w/o. Eswarudu of Bhimavarapukota village for an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in the subject land S.No.47/1A. If really physical possession of land covered by S.No.47/1A, 47/1B and 47/3A was not taken, there was no occasion for the authorities to issue house site patta in respect of subject land. Thus, the aforesaid available record probablizes the case of respondents that possession of the entire acquired land was indeed taken over and later the petitioners must have trespassed into a portion of aforesaid lands on the claim that compensation was not paid to them. I will deal with the compensation aspect a little while later. Coming to petitioners, they have not produced any reliable record to show that even after acquisition they continued to be in legal possession of the subject land. They have not produced either Pattadar Passbooks or title deeds issued to them. In my considered view, if physical possession was not taken over and they continued, but the authorities deleted their names in the revenue records and did not give title deed and pattadar pass book, certainly the petitioners will not keep silent for about 35 years unless their possession was as trespassers. At the outset, I am unable to countenance the plea of the petitioners that the authorities have not taken physical possession and petitioners are continued to be in lawful possession. At the outset, I am unable to countenance the plea of the petitioners that the authorities have not taken physical possession and petitioners are continued to be in lawful possession. Their possession, if any, in respect of the subject lands is as trespassers as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority's case (1 supra). 17. Then payment of compensation is concerned, as rightly contended by the petitioners, in one breathe the 3rd respondent pleaded that the entire compensation was paid but on the other, he pleaded that 1st instalment of Rs.8426.65 ps was paid on 4/12/1988 to K.Dalayya and record was not available with regard to the payment of other instalments. Needless to emphasize that the burden is heavy on the 3rd respondent to prove the due payment of compensation. In this regard, the 3rd respondent filed attested copy of entries from an unknown book, wherein one entry shows as "8426-65 TT A/46 067159 dtd. 14/9/84". Learned Government Pleader tried to explain that the aforesaid entry relates to the payment of 1st instalment to Dalayya. The said plea can only be heard to be rejected. I am unable to comprehend the connectivity of the said entry with the alleged payment of 1st instalment. There is no signature or thumb impression of K.Dalayya or any of his legal heirs as against the said entry. In D.B.Basnett's case (2 supra), which also relates to the controversy of payment of compensation, the Apex Court discarding the plea of revenue to accept the letter dtd. 20/3/1980 of owner of the subject land expressing no objection for acquisition as a receipt for payment of compensation, held that respondents failed to establish that they had acquired the land in accordance with law and paid due compensation. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that the respondents failed to prove the payment of compensation to the original owner or the petitioners. 18. Thus, on a conspectus of facts, record and law, what surfaces is that pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, the authorities have indeed taken possession of the entire acquired land but failed to pay compensation to the original owner or his legal heirs i.e., the petitioners and thereby, the petitioners have trespassed into a portion of the subject land subsequently. 18. Thus, on a conspectus of facts, record and law, what surfaces is that pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, the authorities have indeed taken possession of the entire acquired land but failed to pay compensation to the original owner or his legal heirs i.e., the petitioners and thereby, the petitioners have trespassed into a portion of the subject land subsequently. In that view and as one of the two conditions alone was fulfilled, the acquisition proceedings under Award No.12/83 will not lapse in terms of Sec. 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act and they will continue. 19. In the light of the above finding, though the petitioners are not entitled to squat over the subject lands as they are deemed to be trespassers, however, they are entitled to due compensation which was not paid so far. Then the crucial question is whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the RFCTLARR Act. In this context, proviso to Sec. 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act lays down that where the award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of beneficiaries, then all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act. Here the facts are however different. In the instant case, admittedly compensation was paid to majority of land holdings and non-payment was only in respect of minority holding of Ac.2.17 cents of K.Dalayya i.e., the predecessor in title of the petitioners. As such, in my view, the petitioners would be entitled to the original compensation of Rs.20,150.50 ps under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 along with interest from the date of award till the realization. This point is answered accordingly. 20. Point No.2: In view of the findings as above, the Gram Panchayat of Bhimavarapukota / 5th respondent in W.P.No.17691/2018 has got the right to lay approach road on a part of the subject lands, however, only after payment of due compensation to the petitioners as stated supra. 21. This point is answered accordingly. 20. Point No.2: In view of the findings as above, the Gram Panchayat of Bhimavarapukota / 5th respondent in W.P.No.17691/2018 has got the right to lay approach road on a part of the subject lands, however, only after payment of due compensation to the petitioners as stated supra. 21. In the result, (i) W.P.No.353/2018 and W.P.No.1779/2018 are dismissed with the observation that if the respondent authorities propose to resume the occupied portion of the acquired land from the petitioners, they can initiate resumption proceedings by following due process of law after depositing compensation of Rs.20,150.50 ps with simple interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of Award No.12/83 i.e., 8/11/1983 till payment, with the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P. (ii) W.P.No.17691/2018 is disposed of with the observation that the 5th respondent / Gram Panchayat can lay approach road over the subject land after completion of resumption proceedings and deposit of compensation amount by the respondents 1 to 4 as stated above. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.