Case Note & Summary
The case involves an intra-court appeal filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (appellant) against an order of a learned Single Judge dated 18/10/2022 in W.P. No.9477/2021. The respondent, M/s Abhishek Developers, a partnership firm, along with other respondents including the Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer, were parties. The respondent-landowner had filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider its representation for de-notification of its land acquired for the appellant's power transmission project. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this writ appeal. The Division Bench heard the matter and reserved judgment on 10.02.2025, delivering it on 14.02.2025. The court examined the legal issue of whether a landowner has a right to seek de-notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the acquiring authority is bound to consider such representation before taking possession. The court held that the landowner's right to seek de-notification is a legal right, and the authority must consider it. The court found no infirmity in the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, upholding the direction to consider the representation. The court did not interfere with the merits of the de-notification request, leaving it to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - De-notification - Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right of Landowner - The respondent-landowner sought de-notification of his land acquired for the appellant's power project. The Single Judge directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the representation. The Division Bench upheld this, holding that the landowner has a right to seek de-notification and the authority must consider it before taking possession. (Paras 1-10) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Land Acquisition - The court held that a writ petition seeking consideration of a representation for de-notification is maintainable, as it involves a legal right of the landowner and a corresponding duty of the authority. (Paras 5-8) C) Land Acquisition - Possession - De-notification - The court clarified that the acquiring authority cannot take possession of the land without first considering the landowner's representation for de-notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition filed by the respondent-landowner seeking consideration of his representation for de-notification of the acquired land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable and whether the acquiring authority is obliged to consider such representation before taking possession.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the respondent's representation for de-notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Law Points
- De-notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Right of landowner to seek de-notification
- Duty of acquiring authority to consider representation before taking possession
- Maintainability of writ petition against acquisition proceedings
