As per the the land acquisition Act it has to be deposited in a separate account and not to be kept in treasury of state or court.  If the said provision is not adhered to then the deemed acquisition lapses. 

Upon the preliminary notification of the land  being communicated, it is deemed that the land becomes the property of the Government. In your case preliminary notification was issued on 28.11.1996.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (MUDA) had passed an award on 30.9.1997, which was duly approved by the Divisional Commissioner on 27.11.1997. The compensation amount was determined. in case of  affected parties  who had refused to receive the notice of the award a mahazar was drawn up by the Special Revenue Inspector of the authority as on 18.2.1998. For those parties who had not received the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (MUDA), the same had been deposited in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mysore. The possession of the land in question has been taken and a notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act was issued on 26.2.1998. 

In your case as the as the project was taken up under the assistance of the Asian Development Bank, the State Level Co-ordination Committee, constituted for the purpose of granting approval in respect of the projects taken up under the ADB Scheme, had approved the project of construction of the truck terminal. In case of projects taken up under the assistance of the ADB, the State Government would dispense with the need for prior approval of the State Government under Section 18(3) of the KUDA Act and hence the authority was informed that there was no need for obtaining sanction in respect of the project

In the above circumstances, the court has held that even if the Scheme has lapsed, the fact that the land has vested in the State in the first instance and it is thereafter claimed that the same has been handed over to the authority or that there was no prior sanction of the Scheme, the acquisition proceedings have attained finality and would not lapse. It is also held that the State Government is enabled to utilise the land for such other public purpose, even if the land is to be resumed by the State Government on account of the Scheme having been found to be invalid or having lapsed.

The other circumstance that the petitioners have sought for enhancement of compensation is also a circumstance which would disentitle the petitioners from seeking to challenge the acquisition proceedings and hence the remedy available to you is to continue the proceeding which you have initiated to seek enhancement of compensation, if these have been initiated.

As far the applicability of the new Act  of  2013 being invoked for payment of higher compensation, it will be incumbent upon the court to consider it, and in your case as the acquisition seems to have attained finality, seems doubtful.

Acquisition of land has been upheld in your case 

2) 

Pune Municipal Corporation v Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, to mean that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act five years prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Act would lapse if the acquired land was not taken possession of by the State, or compensation was not paid to the displaced farmers

3) The bench held in this case that if the landholder refuses to receive the compensation, then it should be deposited with a court, rather than in the Government treasury if the proceedings were not to lapse.

4) it is not open to the person who has refused to accept compensation, to urge that since it has not been deposited in court, acquisition has lapsed. Claimants/landowners after refusal, cannot take advantage of their own wrong

5) in your case compensation has been deposited in court 

6) 2013 act would not be applicable 

Dear Client,

You have not challenged the order and hence become final, otherwise has very possibility of order in your favor. Non-use of acquired land makes it invalid.

AS per amended act, when any land acquired remains unutilised for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs. 

Well, some time back, ,after amendment came into force, SC has in same kind of matter, declared the acquisition invalid and entitling higher compensation.

Land is still vacate and unused, acquisition liable to be quash and return to owners.

in your case HC has upheld acquisition and held that land can be used for other public purpose 

2) further admittedly in your case compensation has been deposited by authorities in court 

Yes it's valid  it it's before larger bench in supreme Court

As per the latest rule and the amendments, if the land acquired for any purpose has not been used for the purpose for more than 5 years then it should be returned to the owner of the land from whom it was acquired.

You can file a writ petition before high court on the basis of the latest rules in this regard and claim the land back moreover you have not taken the money from them for this acquisition.

Yes the acquired land has not been used for more than 5 years from the date of its acquisition, then it can be returned to the owner  provided the owner is ready and willing to return the amount received towards compensation.

You can fight on merits. Winning can't be predicted in court of law

You should act as per your lawyer advice 

litigation is long drawn and expensive proposition 

You can rely upon the latest amendments and also the latest supreme court judgments on the subject and fight it out confidently.

You may be in regular touch with your advocate

Compensation not paid or deposited with a court - land acquisition not valid.