Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 
Section 24(2)—Order of High Court declaring acquisition proceedings deemed to be lapsed—Appeal—Locus of original writ petitioners being subsequent purchasers—Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of acquisition—Original writ petitioners being the subsequent purchasers of the land in question they do not derive any right or title to the land at the time of award and thereafter cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings—High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners  subsequent purchasers and declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed—Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is set aside—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 2.1 & 3]
Section 24(2)—Order of High Court declaring acquisition proceedings deemed to be lapsed—Appeal— Specific case before High Court on behalf of appellant that possession could not be taken over due to pending litigation initiated by original land owners challenging the acquisition which ended upto the Apex Court—As observed and held by the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 the period during the stay is to be excluded—If the acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafter the land owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse—Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is set aside—Appeal allowed.
[Para 2.2 & 3]