Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Shantinath Chougule, as legal heir of his deceased father Shantinath Dada Chougule, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 3 December 2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner (Rehabilitation), Pune Division, rejecting his application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) seeking withdrawal of his land from acquisition. The land in question, Gat No. 903/2 and Gat No. 131/1B+2B+1C/2 admeasuring 19 R situated at Mauje Mardawadi, was acquired for the rehabilitation of project affected persons displaced from the Warna Dam project under the Resettlement Act. The State Government had issued a notification under Section 11(1) of the Resettlement Act on 13 May 1977 fixing a ceiling of 8 acres for acquisition. On 13 October 1983, a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued, followed by a Section 6 notification on 8 October 1986, and an award on 29 December 1988. The petitioner contended that his father's joint family holding on the notified date was only 8 acres and 5 gunthas, and that the inclusion of a mortgaged land (Revisional Survey No. 1077/2 admeasuring 3 acres 16 gunthas) in the holding was erroneous, as possession was never transferred. He also claimed that the mortgaged land was later re-conveyed in a civil suit. The petitioner filed an application under Section 48(1) in January 2004, offering alternate land, but the Commissioner rejected it on the ground that acquisition was complete, possession had vested in the Government, and the land had been allotted to project affected persons in 1997. The court analyzed the facts and held that once possession is taken and an award is passed, the Government cannot withdraw from acquisition under Section 48(1). The court also noted that the petitioner's father never objected during the acquisition proceedings, and the petition suffered from gross delay and laches as it was filed in 2008 challenging an award of 1988. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Commissioner's order and the validity of the acquisition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Withdrawal from Acquisition - Section 48(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Once possession of land has been taken and award is passed, the Government loses its power to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48(1) - The provision only permits withdrawal before possession is taken - Held that the Commissioner correctly rejected the application as possession had already vested in the Government and the land was allotted to project affected persons in 1997 (Paras 1-9, 30-35). B) Land Acquisition - Delay and Laches - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Challenge to acquisition after 20 years of award and 11 years after filing petition is not maintainable - Third party rights have been created in favour of allottees - Held that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches and no interference is warranted (Paras 30-35). C) Land Acquisition - Resettlement Act - Ceiling and Acquisition - The petitioner's contention that mortgaged land was wrongly included in holding was not raised at the appropriate time - The father of petitioner never objected to the acquisition proceedings - Held that the acquisition was valid and the petitioner cannot now challenge the same (Paras 5-7, 30-35).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking withdrawal of land from acquisition, and whether the acquisition of the petitioner's land was legal and valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 3 December 2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner is upheld. The acquisition of the petitioner's land is held to be valid. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 48(1) cannot be invoked after possession is taken and award is passed
- Resettlement Act provisions for ceiling and acquisition
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not to be exercised after inordinate delay and when third party rights have vested
