Supreme Court Examines Whether Withdrawal of Land Acquisition Under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Permissible After Possession Had Already Been Taken. Dispute Centered on Notification Dated 12.04.2001 Withdrawing Acquisition of Survey No.50 Despite Prior Possession and Multiple Dismissals of Challenges by Land Owners.

Civil appeals against a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court which affirmed a Single Judge’s order quashing a State Government notification that had cancelled an earlier withdrawal of land acquisition, thereby restoring the withdrawal.

Appellants sought setting aside of the High Court’s judgment and dismissal of the writ petition, thereby upholding the State Government’s notification dated 22.03.2005 that cancelled the earlier withdrawal of acquisition, and allowing the acquisition of the land to stand.

The High Court had quashed the notification dated 22.03.2005 and restored the earlier notification dated 12.04.2001, which withdrew the acquisition, thereby prejudicing the rights of the allottees and the Bangalore Development Authority.

The High Court by judgment dated 30.03.2007 allowed W.P. No.13404 of 2005, setting aside the notification dated 22.03.2005 and restoring the notification dated 12.04.2001. The Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 11.12.2008 dismissed the writ appeal filed by Bangalore Development Authority. Earlier, in W.P. No.37577 of 2002, a Single Judge on 04.11.2003 set aside the notification dated 09.05.2001 for want of notice. The State Government then issued the impugned notification dated 22.03.2005 after hearing. Prior writ petitions and suits by land owners challenging the acquisition were dismissed, and the acquisition was held to have become final.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable given the principles of res judicata, stare decisis, delay and laches, and non-joinder of necessary parties. Whether possession of the land was actually taken on 23.03.1984 and the acquisition had become final prior to the withdrawal notification. Whether the State Government could lawfully withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after possession had been taken and a notification under Section 16(2) had been issued. Whether the cancellation of the withdrawal without notice was valid and whether the subsequent issuance of notice cured the defect.

The appellant had locus standi as an association of allottees whose interests were affected. The writ petition was not maintainable due to res judicata, stare decisis, delay and laches, and non-joinder of necessary parties, as the acquisition had been repeatedly upheld in earlier proceedings. Possession of the land was taken by Special Land Acquisition Officers on 23.03.1984, as recorded in the Mahazer, and a notification under Section 16(2) was issued on 07.05.1985, thereby finalizing the acquisition. The High Court erred in holding that actual possession was not taken, when the Mahazer specifically recorded that owners were present and refused to hand over. Reliance was placed on various Supreme Court judgments supporting the proposition that once possession is taken, the acquisition becomes irreversible and Section 48 cannot be invoked. The appellant also contested a Survey Report alleging encroachment, asserting that the allotted land included Survey Nos. 50, 51, and 52 as per registered sale deed.

Ratio not explicitly mentioned

The issue raised in these two appeals centres around the Notification dated 12.04.2001, issued by State Government, withdrawing Survey No.50, area 6 acres, 20 guntas from the acquisition made by the State Government by Notification under Section 4 dated 19.09.1977 and declaration under Section 6 dated 07.02.1978 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Bangalore Development Authority which was not informed prior to issuance of order dated 12.04.2001, immediately, brought to notice of the State Government that possession of land has already been taken in the year 1984, no order can be passed under Section 48. Learned counsel further contends that learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that actual possession was not taken by the State in March, 1984. It is submitted that possession was taken by Special Land Acquisition Officers of the State by going on to the spot on 23.03.1984.

The State Government initiated acquisition proceedings for a large extent of land for a layout by BDA, issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 19.09.1977 and 07.02.1978 respectively. Land owners challenged the acquisition in writ petitions which were dismissed by the High Court on 10.02.1984, and writ appeals dismissed. An award was passed on 08.02.1984, and possession of Survey No. 50 was taken on 23.03.1984 and handed over to BDA, with a notification under Section 16(2) published on 07.05.1985. Compensation was deposited. Subsequently, land was allotted to N.A.L. Employees Cooperative Housing Society and sale deed executed on 09.05.1985. Several subsequent writ petitions and suits by land owners including Munivenkatappa and his family members were dismissed. On 12.04.2001, the State Government issued a notification under Section 48 withdrawing Survey No. 50 from acquisition. BDA objected and the State Government cancelled this withdrawal on 09.05.2001. Land owners challenged the cancellation in W.P. No. 37577 of 2002; the High Court on 04.11.2003 set aside the cancellation for lack of notice. After issuing notice, the State Government on 22.03.2005 again cancelled the 12.04.2001 withdrawal. Land owners filed W.P. No. 13404 of 2005; a Single Judge on 30.03.2007 allowed the petition, setting aside the 22.03.2005 notification and restoring the 12.04.2001 withdrawal. BDA’s writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 11.12.2008. The present civil appeals were filed against that judgment.

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 4, 6, 9, 16(2), 48