JUDGMENT

1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore of 2-4-1998 in Writ Appeals Nos. 3939-40 of 1997. The appellant before us was the appellant before the High Court as well. The writ petitions giving rise to the appeals were filed by the Davangere Urban Development Authority, Respondent 2 herein challenging the notification published in the Official Gazette dated 22-12-1994 whereby a portion of the land acquired in the year 1979 for the formation of residential layout in the city of Davangere was released from acquisition.

2. The question which arises for consideration before us is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Government was justified in C releasing a portion of the land from acquisition. While the appellant contends that the lands notified for acquisition and belonging to the appellant were not taken possession of by the State, it is contended on behalf of the Development Authority that possession of the lands in question was taken on 6-11-1985.

3. The High Court has recorded its reasons and reached the conclusion d that in fact possession of the lands in question was taken by the Government on 6-11-1985. The appellant has challenged the correctness of this decision.

4. The impugned notification was issued after exchange of correspondence between the officials of the State of Karnataka culminating in the order of the Honble Minister for Urban Development and Wakfs. The Honble Minister took the view that the file did not disclose that actual e possession of the lands had been taken. This conclusion was reached on the basis that symbolic possession does not amount to taking actual possession. Thus, the Honble Minister was of the view that since actual possession of the lands had not been taken, the Government could withdraw from acquisition at any time. Consequently, he directed that the lands in question may be denotified. Pursuant thereto a gazette notification was issued on 3-121994 and was published in the Karnataka Official Gazette on 22-12-1994.

5. It is argued before us that the learned Judge who allowed the writ petitions and the Division Bench which dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellant have erroneously held that possession of the lands in question was taken on 6-11-1985. This submission was made on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in an earlier proceeding before this Court on 6-2-1986 wherein he had stated that the appellant herein was refusing to receive the award, and therefore possession of the lands proposed to be acquired had been taken except the lands of the appellant herein .. However, this assertion in the counter-statement made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is said to be based on his personal knowledge. The record of the case, however, gives a different picture. The order-sheet of the Special Land acquisition officer disclosed that on 6-11-1985 possession of the lands was taken. The translation of the aforesaid order produced before us is not accurate. The original record which had been received earlier by this Court disclosed that the order recorded that even though the appellant was evading to receive the award and had gone away to USA, possession could still be taken, and that possession was taken on that date. This is the order recorded in the order-sheet of the Special Land -Acquisition Officer. We fail to understand how the officer could swear an affidavit to the contrary before this Court on 6-2-1986.

6. Moreover, the Honble Minister who passed the order of denotification of the lands in question sought to make a distinction between symbolic possession and actual possession and proceed to pass the order on the basis of his understanding of the law that symbolic possession did not amount to actual possession, and that the power to withdraw from the acquisition could be exercised at any time before "actual possession" was taken. This view