Important Points
1. It is not enough to allege that a particular Rule or any provision has not been complied with. It is a requirement of good pleading to give details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged, that there is non-compliance with a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can be taken on such an allegation which is devoid of any particular. No issue can be raised on a plea which is lacking in foundation. Even where Rule Nisi is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the Court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the Court.
2. A writ petition challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be barred by laches if challenge is not made within a reasonable time.
3. In view of Panchanama and revenue records being the accepted modes of taking of possession of the acquired land, it would not be proper for the High Court to convert itself into a revenue Court and hold that inspite of the Panchanama and the revenue records, actual physi­cal possession of the acquired land was not handed over to the acquir­ing body.
4. A notification in the Official Gazette is required to be issued if the State Govt. decides to withdraw from the acquisition u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of any land of which possession has not been taken. An owner need not be given any notice of the intention of the State Govt. to withdraw from the acquisition as the rights of the owner are well protected by sub-section (2) of Section 48 and if he suffers any damage consequent to acquisition proceedings, he would be paid compensation as provided u/s 48(3) of the Act. However, in the case of a company, opportunity has to be given to it to show cause against any order which the State Govt. proposes to make withdrawing from the acquisition.

Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted

All these five appeals arise out of a common judgment dated February 27, 1997 of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in three Spe­cial Civil Applications (SCA) Nos. 1568/87, 5149/89 and 5171/91 where­by the High Court set aside the acquisition of land for M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (‘L&T Ltd.’ for short) under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) comprised in SCAs 1568/87 and 5149/89 and dismissed the challenge of L&T Ltd. in SCA 5171/ 91 for withdrawal from acquisition by the State Government under Section 48 of the Act. In all these matters, different notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued as it appeared to the State Government that lands specified in these notifications which were under challenge in these matters were likely to be needed for the purpose of a housing colony of the L&T Ltd. “which was engaged in Engineering Manufactures Industries which was for a public purpose”. All the lands are situated in Village Mandalla, Taluk Choryasi, Dis­trict Surat. In SCA 1568/1987 acquisition was set aside on the ground that there was no compliance with the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (‘Rules’ for short). In SCA 5149/89 acquisition was set aside not only on the ground of non-compliance with the Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules but also that peti­tioners therein were not served with notice under Section 9 of the Act before passing of the award. In SCA 5171 High Court held that the decision of the State Government for withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act was neither illegal nor ultra vires though the same would be enforceable only on the issuing of notification under Section 48 of the Act. In this case, High Court also held that actual physical possession of the land had not been delivered to the acquir­ing body L&T Ltd. Against the order passed in SCA 1568/87 both L&T Ltd. and the State Government have filed special leave petition Nos. 11957/97 and 12986/97 respectively. Against the order in SCA 5149/89 again both L&T Ltd. and the State Government have filed special leave petitions respectively bearing Nos. 11900/97 and 14637/97. Against the order in SCA 5171/91 it is only the L&T Ltd. who is aggrieved and has filed special leave petition No. 11778/97. In this State Government is supporting its action for withdrawal from acquisition.

2. Under the Act, land can be acquired for a company as well. “Compa­ny” means a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner is such a company. Under Section 4 of the Act whenev­er it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published and a public notice also to be given in the said locality. Under Section 5-A any person interested in any land notified under Section 4 can object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the loca­lity, as the case may be. Procedure is prescribed as to how objections are to be heard by the Collector and his making the report to the Government. Under Section 6 when the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A that any land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect. Part VII of the Act deals with acquisition of land for companies. Under Section 39 falling in Part VII, the provi­sions of Sections 6 to 16 and Sections 18 to 37 shall not be put in force in order to acquire land for any Company unless with the previ­ous consent of the appropriate Government and not unless the Company shall have executed the agreement as prescribed. Under Section 40 an enquiry is to be made before the appropriate Government consents to acquisition of land for the Company. This Section, in relevant part, is as under:

“40. Previous enquiry.-(1) Such consent shall not b