As per case facts, the Delhi Development Authority appealed a High Court judgment that declared land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation was not paid, ... despite possession being taken years prior. The High Court had relied on a precedent (Pune Municipal Corporation case) that was later overruled. The question arose whether the acquisition should be deemed lapsed when possession was taken but compensation was not paid, based on the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Finally, the Supreme Court, referring to its Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority, held that if possession of the land has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2), even if compensation has not been paid. The Court clarified that for a lapse to occur, both possession must not have been taken *and* compensation must not have been paid. Therefore, the High Court's judgment was deemed unsustainable and set aside.