Judgement

RANGANATHAN, J.:- The question raised in this appeal is a somewhat unusual one. The State Government wants to withdraw proceedings for acquisition of lands initiated by it under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by exercising its powers under S. 48 but the owner of the land is insisting that the Government should be directed to go ahead with the acquisition, take over the lands and pay him compensation. The reasons for this somewhat unusual request will become apparent a little later.

2. By a notification dated 6th November, 1961, issued under S. 4 of the Act, certain lands belonging to the respondent company were notified for acquisition in order to accommodate housing schemes of the Maharashtra Housing Board. This was followed up, on 18th November, 1965, by a declaration under S. 6 of the Act and, on 15th January, 1966, by notices calling upon the respondent to put forward its claims of compensation in respect of the land sought to be acquired. Thereafter, however, no further proceedings were taken. In the meantime it appears that the lands were encroached upon by a large number of trespassers who put up slums thereon. The respondent repeatedly requested the State Government to take steps to remove the encroachments and to expedite the making of the award and payment of compensation but these requests went unheeded. The respondent thereupon filed Misc. Petn. No. 1803 of 1978 in the High Court of Bombay praying, inter alia, for a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Government to make the award under S. 11 of the Act and to take possession of the lands after payment of due compensation to the respondent.

3. On 25th March, 1981, the State Government passed orders withdrawing the lands of the respondent from acquisition under S.48, of the Act. The respondent was informed of this decision on 20th October, 1981 and an affidavit to this effect was also filed in the High Court in reply to the Writ Petition. Thereupon the respondent company amended its Writ Petition, challenged the withdrawal order as mala fide and included a prayer for quashing the decision of the State Government to withdraw its lands from the acquisition. This Writ Petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court oil 9-11-1983 and his decision was affirmed by a Division Bench on 6th August, 1985. The State Government has preferred this appeal.

4. The contention of the respondent before the High Court was that the State Government had acted mala fide in invoking the power of withdrawal permitted by S. 48 in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was contended that the purpose for which the lands had been sought to be acquired continued to subsist and that, all along, in the correspondence between the parties the State Government had given no indication that the lands were no longer needed by it for that purpose. It was urged that the order under S. 48 had been passed, after the respondent company filed a writ petition, solely with a view to defeat the relief claimed by the Company in the writ petition and render the same infructuous. It was submitted that the respondent had not been able to take steps to remove the encroachments because of the pendency of the proceedings for acquisition inasmuch as under S. 24 of the Act any expenditure incurred by the company in this regard could not be taken into account in determining the compensation due to the respondent. It was pointed, out that while the company was helpless in defending itself against the encroachments, the State had ample powers, while taking possession of the land, to remove the trespassers and enforce the surrender of the lands to the Government both under the Land Acquisition Act and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It was urged that the long delay of about 20 years in taking the step of withdrawal showed mala fides on the part of the Government. A grievance was also made that no show cause notice had been given to the respondent company