As per case facts, the High Court allowed a writ petition, declaring land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, citing non-payment of compensation and relying on the ... Pune Municipal Corporation judgment. The appellant challenged this, stating that physical possession of the land was taken over in 1987. The question arose whether the High Court's reliance on the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment was valid, given that it had been overruled by a Constitution Bench decision. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that since physical possession of the land was taken, there is no deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) as per the authoritative Indore Development Authority judgment. Therefore, the High Court's order was unsustainable.