As per case facts, Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, claiming that the land acquisition had lapsed because ... compensation was not paid, and possession was not taken. The High Court allowed her petition. The Appellant, Delhi Development Authority, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's order was unsustainable based on a Constitution Bench judgment, and compensation was deposited in the Reference Court due to an ownership dispute, with possession also being taken. The question arose whether the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when compensation was deposited in the Reference Court due to a dispute over ownership and possession was deemed taken, especially when the respondent was not the recorded owner. Finally, the Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in *Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others*, held that satisfying either taking possession or tendering compensation is sufficient to prevent the acquisition from lapsing. Since the compensation was deposited with the Reference Court due to an ownership dispute, this amounted to tendering compensation. Therefore, the acquisition had not lapsed, and the High Court's order was set aside, dismissing the Writ Petition.