IMPORTANT POINTS
Once possession of the acquired land is taken, the State has no power to withdraw from the acquisition.
Revenue minister has no power to invoke section 48.
Acquisition proceedings begin with notification in official gazette therefore release of acquired land will not be complete until notified in official gazette.

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48 and 16 – So long as possession is not taken of the acquired land, State is at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition either partly or fully – But once possession of the acquired land is taken, the State has no power to withdraw from the acquisition – Instantly, looking to the Panchanama dated 30.05.2004, Mutation Entry No. 8212, possession receipt and Mutation Entry of PCNTDA; held that the State did take possession of the acquired land – Hence held, section 48 is not applicable to instant case. (Para 38, 39, 43, 45)
       (1976) 1 SCC 700 – Relied upon
       (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48 – Power of State to release land under acquisition – Revenue minister having no power to invoke section 48. (Para 46)
       (c) Administrative law – Official order – Noting in file – Internal deliberation – Unless approved and validly communicated by the competent authority to the person concerned, such noting does not create any right in favour of the person concerned – Further, acquisition proceedings begin with notification in official gazette – Release of acquired land will not be complete until notified in official gazette – Section 48, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –
        (Para 49, 50, 51
       AIR 1961 SC 493; (1987) 3 SCC 34; (1993) 2 SCC 84; (2009) 1 SCC 180; (2009) 15 SCC 705 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       This is a case under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for release of acquired land. The High Court ordered release of the land.
       Finding of the Court:
       The then Revenue Minister, who passed the order dated 10.06.2004 had no power to deal with the matter relating to release of the land in question. He simply usurped the power under Section 48 of the Act, which he never possessed. It was an abuse of exercise of power by him while dealing with the State's largesse.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.5783 of 2006 whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by respondent No.1 herein and directed the State Government to issue notification in the official gazette for release of the acquired land from acquisition on the basis of the Revenue Minister’s order dated 10.06.2004 passed under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3) In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the factual background of the case in detail. The facts mentioned here-in-below are taken from the SLP paper books and its List of Dates.

4) Survey No. (Gat. No.210 measuring- around 39 H 26 R and Survey No. 211 measuring around 1 H 23 R- Total land 40 H 49 R) situated at Mauje Wakad, Tehsil Mulshi, District Pune (Maharashtra) was originally owned by the members of one "Deo" family.

5) On 12.03.1970, the State Government acquired this land by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was followed by publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The acquisition was for a public purpose, namely, "planned development and utilization of lands in Pimpri Chinchwad Township Area for industrial, commercial and residential purposes”. The development project for which the land was acquired was to be executed through Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority (for short, called "PCNTDA “) - appellant herein.

6) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, called "SLAO”) then initiated the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act for determination of the compensation payable to the landowners and accordingly passed an award dated 23.09.1986. The SLAO then issued notices to the landowners as required under Section 12 (2) of the Act. Since the landowners did not accept the compensation, the entire amount of compensation was deposited by the SLAO in Revenue Deposit Account of Treasury.

7) The members of “Deo family” (landowners) felt aggrieved by the award dated 23.09.1986 and filed writ petition being W.P. No. 3719/1987 in the High Court at Bombay. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 18.07.1989. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petition filed review petition (R.P. No. 3751/1989) before the High Court, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 08.09.1989. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition and the review petition, the landowners filed SLP (c) No.12889/1989 in this Court. It was also dismissed as withdrawn on 27.11.1989.

8) In the meantime, on 19.09.1989, the members of “Deo Family” filed an application under Section 48(1) of the Act to the Revenue Minister of the State of Maharashtra and prayed therein for release of their acquired land. During pendency of this application, the landowners filed writ petition (No.36/1990) in the High Court and prayed therein for a direction to the State for deciding their application. By order dated 12.01.1990, the High Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the State to decide the landowners' application in accordance with law.

9) By order dated 07.07.1992, the State Government partly allowed the landowners' application and while releasing the land measuring 29 H 98 R retained the remaining land measuring10 H 51 R for execution of the development project for which the entire land had been acquired. The details of the land retained and released are mentioned hereinbelow:

Survey No.

Area covered under SLAO H:R

Area deleted from acquisition H:R

Area remained under acquisition to be given to PCNTDA

210

39 H 26 R

28 H 93 R

10 H 33 R

211

1 H 23 R

1 H 5 R

0 H 18 R

Total

40 H 49 R

29 H 98 R

10 H 51 R

10) It appears fro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Survey No.	Area covered under SLAO H:R	Area deleted from acquisition H:R	Area remained under acquisition to be given to PCNTDA
210	39 H 26 R	28 H 93 R	10 H 33 R
211	1 H 23 R	1 H 5 R	0 H 18 R
Total	40 H 49 R	29 H 98 R	10 H 51 R

2018 Supreme(SC) 758

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority – Appellant(s) Versus Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society & Ors. – Respondent(s) CIVIL APPEAL NO.7649 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.20188 of 2017] Decided On : 03-08-2018

Cases Referred (6)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority – Appellant(s)
Versus
Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7649 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.20188 of 2017]
Decided On : 03-08-2018