Explained | What is the furore around the land law case?

The story so far: At one level it is a legal issue over the interpretation of a provision in the new land acquisition law of 2013. The reason is that the judge concerned, Justice Arun Mishra, of the Supreme Court of India, had overruled a precedent that had held good for four years and given a new interpretation, but was still asked to head a larger Bench meant to render an authoritative verdict on which of the two interpretations is right. Under Section 24, land acquisition made under the old law of 1894 lapses if the award of compensation had been made five years before the new Act came into force, but has not been paid. If, through interpretation, a long-pending land acquisition process is closed under the old law and fresh acquisition proceedings started under the new one, the land-owners stand to benefit, but project proponents will have to pay higher compensation. Based on this judgment, subsequent cases were decided on the same principle: acquisition that had taken place earlier than five years before the new Act commenced would lapse if compensation amount was not paid to the land-owners or, in cases in which the owners refused to accept compensation, deposited in court.