A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE sole and short, but some what difficult, question that arises in these writ petitions is whether the District Collector, who has issued the notification under Section 4 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 1894 (herein after referred to as the Act for short), is empowered or entitled to withdraw the said notification within the meaning of Section 48 (1) of the Act.

( 2 ) THE case is that thedistrict by the amending provision of Section 4 (I) of the Act has been empowered to issue the Notification for the acquisition of the land under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Thereafter however, the District Collector, in the exercise of his discretion thought that the Notification has to be withdrawn. It is accordingly withdrawn by the issuance of a notification by the District Collector himself. It is that action which is impugned in these writ petitions.

( 3 ) SRI E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W. P. No. 5592 of 1983 submits that the Section 48 (1)of the Act in terms explicity does not confer power on the District Collector as it confers power on the Government alone, and therefore, the District Collector who has admittedly withdrawn the notification herein, is not empowered and therefore the withdrawal notification must be declared void.

( 4 ) THE counter contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents as Well as the beneficiaries are that though Section 48 does not expressly confer the power, nevertheless, it is competent for the District Collector as per the provisions enacted in Section 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 to issue a notification withdrawing the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the act.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decisions as under :

( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vishnu prasad Sharma Observed:"the argument that Section 48 (1) is the only method in which the Government can withdraw from the acquisition has, therefore no force because the Government can always cancel the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 by virtue of its power under Section 21 of the general CLAUSES ACT, 1897 and this power can be exercised before the government directs the Collector to take action under Section 7. Section 48 (1) is a special provision for those cases where proceedings for acquisition have gone beyond the stage of the issue of notice under section 9 (1) and it provides for payment of compensation under section 48 (2) read with Section 48 (3 ). We cannot, therefore, accept the argument that without an order under Section 48 (1) the notification under Section 4 must remain outstanding. It can be cancelled at any time by Government under Section 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 and what Section 48 (1) shows is that once Government has taken possession it cannot withdraw from the acquisition. Before that it may cancel the notification under Sections 4 and 6 or it may withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 (1 ). If no notice has been issued under Section 9 (1) all that the Government has to do is to pay for the damage caused as provided in Section 5; if on the other hand a notice has been issued under Section 9 (1), damage has also to be paid in accordance with provisions of Section 48 (2) and (3 ). Sec. 48 (1), therefore is of no asistance to the appellant for whoing that successive declarations under Section 6 can be made with respect to land in the locality specified in the notification under Section 4 (1 ). "in Sadar Anjuman Ahmediyya Muslim Mission vs. State of Andhra pradesh this Court held :"by virtue of Section 48 it is open to the Government except in a case governed by Section 36 to withdraw from the acquisition of the land of which possession has not been taken. Section 48 does not provide for the manner in which such withdrawal can be made. "it was further held :"the notification under Secs. 4 and 6 cannot also be deemed to have been cancelled by reason of a memo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document