Chief Justice of India SA Bobde today hinted that an aspect of the Court's judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors on the interpretation of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act needs some clarification..CJI SA Bobde, who was heading a Bench also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, today said that the decision of the five-judge bench delivered in March this year leaves some loose ends to be tied up. It was noted that the judgment does not specify whether there is an upper time limit till which the government is permitted to not pay compensation before the acquisition lapses..While the legislature provides for a five-year window for compensation to be paid to the landowner, what happens if the same is not done within this stipulated time was the query raised by the Court today.The Bench expressed that the aspect of the judgment that needs clarification is, in the event compensation is not paid, how long will the acquisition remain valid till before it lapses.."If the possession is taken by the government but compensation is not paid, the acquisition does not lapse. But for how long is the question... If possession is taken but compensation not paid, then the finding (in the judgment) is that the acquisition does not lapse...for how long will it not lapse? Forever?"CJI SA Bobde.This query came during the hearing of a petition dealing with a dispute under the Land Acquisition Act. This petition is one of the many that were tagged with the Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors etc case decided by the Constitution Bench. After the judgment was delivered by the Constitution Bench on the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act, individual petitions were all to be decided on merits and facts in light of the judgment..CJI Bobde remarked that the judges on the Bench needed to hold a discussion on this aspect and as such deferred the hearing by two weeks. The Court also sought Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assistance in the matter..On March 6, this year, a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah, and Ravindra Bhat rendered the judgment on the interpretation of the Land Acquisition Act. Through this ruling, the Court overruled all earlier precedents on the issue..Breaking: What a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held on Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act.The Court had held that under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, in case the award is not made as of January 1, 2014 (date of commencement of the 2013 Act), there will be no lapse of proceedings and the compensation will have to be determined as under the 2013 Act..In case the award is passed within the window of five years, then proceedings shall continue as under 24(1)(b) of 2013 Act "under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed". The period of five years mentioned here excludes the period of time covered under any interim orders passed by the courts, the judgment had clarified..Effectively this means that there will be no lapse of proceedings in case where:- possession of the land is taken, and compensation is not paid.- possession of the land not taken, and compensation is paid..Now, however, the question raised by the three-Judge Bench pertains to clarification on how long the proceedings can sustain in case possession is taken but compensation is not paid..The case is likely to be heard after two weeks.