1993 Supreme(AP) 95

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOTILAL B.NAIK
Ch.Madhusudhan Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer (L.A.O.) Warangal - Respondent
Decided On : 02-26-93

When once possession of the land is taken, the land vests in the Government and the notification cannot be cancelled under Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act, nor can the notification be withdrawn in exercise of the powers under Sec. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - POSSESSION - COMPENSATION - WITHDRAWAL OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 48 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - INTERPRETATION - Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to complete land acquisition proceedings, including passing of award, in respect of notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that possession of lands was taken by the respondents and the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the lands in question within a reasonable time. The court further held that respondent No. 4 could not be permitted to withdraw land acquisition proceedings as stated in its counter, as possession of the lands was taken.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to complete land acquisition proceedings, including passing of award, in respect of notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners stated that the respondents had taken possession of their lands in 1981, but had not paid compensation or completed the land acquisition proceedings. The respondents contended that the possession of the lands was only symbolic and that they were entitled to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings under Section 48 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that possession of lands was taken by the respondents and the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the lands in question within a reasonable time. The court further held that respondent No. 4 could not be permitted to withdraw land acquisition proceedings as stated in its counter, as possession of the lands was taken.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the lands now sought to be acquired by the issuance of Section 4 (1) notification dated 11-12-1991 to the extent of Ac. 24-14 guntas in S. Nos. 24, 26 and 465 of Jangaon? 2. Whether the stand taken by the respondents that handing over possession of lands was only symbolic and physical possession was with the land owners could be accepted? 3. Whether respondent No. 4 could be permitted to withdraw land acquisition proceedings as stated at para 9 of his counter?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that possession of lands was taken by the respondents on 27-6-1981 by conducting a panchanama in the presence of Revenue Inspector, patwari of the village, an officer of the 4th respondent and three panchas. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagde's case, where it was held that the appellant's resuming possession of the land after once it was validly taken by the Government had not the effect of undoing the fact of the vesting of the land in the Government. 2. The court held that the respondents' contention that the possession of the lands was only symbolic could not be accepted, as the panchanama for delivering possession of the lands was conducted and signed by an officer of the 4th respondent, the Revenue Inspector and the patwari participated in the panchanama and the panchas witnessed the preparation of panchanama. 3. The court held that respondent No. 4 could not be permitted to withdraw land acquisition proceedings as stated in its counter, as possession of the lands was taken. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lt. Governor, H. P. vs. Avinash Sharma, where it was held that when once possession of the land is taken, the land vests in the Government and the notification cannot be cancelled under Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act, nor can the notification be withdrawn in exercise of the powers under Sec. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to complete the land acquisition proceedings, including passing of award and payment of compensation, within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment.