Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of original grantees of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 26 of Nagadevanahalli Village, Bangalore, sought a writ of mandamus declaring that their lands stood withdrawn from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide a notification dated 03-09-1993. The lands had been acquired for the formation of a layout by the third respondent, a housing cooperative society. Preliminary notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 31-07-1986, followed by final notification under Section 6(1) on 22-01-1987, an award under Section 11(2) on 06-06-1987, and deposit of compensation amount. Possession of the lands was voluntarily handed over by the original grantees and taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 09-11-1987. The petitioners contended that a notification under Section 48(1) issued on 03-09-1993 had withdrawn their lands from the acquisition process. They claimed to have discovered this notification only recently and argued that their right to property entitled them to relief despite earlier dismissals of six similar writ petitions. The respondent society and the State opposed the petition, asserting that the notification was never gazetted, the acquisition stood completed upon taking possession in 1987, and the petition was an abuse of process as all previous challenges had been dismissed and the ground could have been raised earlier. The High Court Government Pleader confirmed that the communication was found in records but not gazetted, rendering it ineffective under Section 48(1). The court framed the core issues: validity of the ungazetted notification, applicability of Section 48(1) after completion of acquisition, and whether the petition was barred by res judicata or abuse of process. After examining the factual matrix and procedural history, the court held that a notification under Section 48(1) to withdraw from acquisition must be published in the official gazette; a mere internal communication without gazette publication is no notification in the eye of law and confers no rights. Furthermore, once the acquisition process is complete—award passed and possession taken—the power under Section 48(1) cannot be invoked. The court also noted that the petitioners or their predecessors had filed multiple writ petitions over decades challenging the acquisition, all of which were dismissed. The ground based on the 1993 notification was available throughout but not raised in earlier proceedings. Filing successive petitions on the same cause of action or on grounds that could have been taken earlier was held to be a gross abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the court warned against further litigation on the same cause.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Withdrawal under Section 48(1) - Requirement of Gazette Notification - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 48(1) - The petitioners claimed that their lands were withdrawn from acquisition by a notification dated 03-09-1993. The court examined whether a communication without publication in the official gazette could constitute a valid withdrawal. Held that a notification under Section 48(1) of the Act must be published in the official gazette to be effective; a mere communication without such publication is invalid and cannot confer any right (Paras 20, 21). B) Land Acquisition - Completion of Acquisition and Possession - Inapplicability of Section 48(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4(1), 6(1), 11(2), 48(1) - The acquisition process was initiated by preliminary notification dated 31-07-1986, final notification dated 22-01-1987, and award passed on 06-06-1987. Possession of the lands was voluntarily handed over and taken on 09-11-1987. Held that once the acquisition process is complete and possession is taken, the power under Section 48(1) to withdraw from acquisition cannot be exercised (Para 21). C) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata and Abuse of Process - Repeated Litigation - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioners or their predecessors had previously filed multiple writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 32177/1994, 33916/1994, 26342/1999, 31247/1999, 53945/2013) challenging the acquisition, all of which were dismissed. The present petition raised a ground that was available but not taken in earlier proceedings. Held that filing successive petitions on the same cause of action or on grounds that could have been raised earlier constitutes an abuse of the process of the court, warranting dismissal with costs (Paras 13-19, 22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notification dated 03-09-1993 under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 withdrawing the lands from acquisition was valid and effective, and whether the petition was barred by res judicata or abuse of process
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The court held that the notification under Section 48(1) was not published in the official gazette and thus not effective; the acquisition process stood completed in 1987 with possession taken, and subsequent withdrawal under Section 48(1) was impermissible; the repeated litigation by the petitioners constituted an abuse of process of the court.
Law Points
- Section 48(1) withdrawal must be by gazette notification
- ungazetted communication is invalid
- completion of acquisition and taking of possession bars withdrawal
- repeated litigation on same cause of action is abuse of process
