“97. Section 24(2) carves out an exception to Section 24(1)(b), where the award has been passed, and the proceedings are pending, but in such proceedings, physical possession of the land has not been taken, or compensation has not been paid, proceedings shall lapse. There are twin requirements for the lapse; firstly, physical possession has not been taken and, secondly, compensation has not been paid. In case, possession has been taken but compensation has been paid, there is no lapse of the proceedings. The question which is to be decided is whether the conditions are cumulative i.e. both are to be fulfilled, for lapsing of acquisition proceedings, or the conditions are in the alternative (“either/or”). According to the State and acquiring agencies, in a situation where possession has been taken, and compensation is not paid, there is no lapse : also in case where compensation has been paid, but possession not taken in a proceeding pending as on 1-1-2014, there is no lapse. Sine qua non is that proceeding must be pending. They argue that the word “or” used in phrase “the physical possession of the land has been not taken, or the compensation has not been paid”, has to be interpreted as “and” as two negative requirements qualify it. Furthermore, argues the State when two negative conditions are connected by “or”, they are construed as cumulative, the word “or” is to be read as “nor” or “and”. Naturally, the landowners argue to the contrary i.e. that lapse of acquisition occurred if
