The withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be effected by a Memo issued by the Executive Engineer, Malda Irrigation Division and the subsequent Memo issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malda.

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 28th June, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. By the aforesaid common judgment, the learned single Judge decided two writ petitions where common question of law is involved on identical facts.

( 2 ) IN both the writ petitions the petitioners prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondent for publication of the award and payment of compensation in respect of the lands covered under the Land Acquisition cases being Nos. LA/39/iv/2000-2001 and LA/40/iv/2000-2001 respectively.

( 3 ) WHILE deciding the said writ petitions, the learned Single Judge directed the concerned respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings by passing appropriate award and also to pay the compensation and other amounts in terms of the Land Acquisition Act to both the writ petitioners.

( 4 ) ON examination of the judgment under appeal and scrutinising the copies of the available documents it appears that notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also for application of Section 17 (1) and Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of the lands in question of the writ petitioners. It was also submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the concerned respondents took possession of the lands in question of the petitioners and excavated earth from the said lands. It was specifically urged before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the petitioners that the Government cannot bypass responsibility to pay compensation on the plea that subsequently the acquisition proceedings were dropped.

( 5 ) IT was, however, submitted on behalf of the State-respondents that although the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and section 17 (4) of the said Act was published in respect of the lands in question of the petitioners but within a period of three weeks from the date of publication of the said notification, the concerned authority, namely, the Executive Engineer, Malda Irrigation Division by written communication dated 25th August, 2000 intimated the Special Land Acquisition Officer, malda regarding cancellation of the acquisition proposal in respect of the lands in question and pursuant to the said intimation, the Special Land acquisition Officer, Malda informed the Executive Engineer, Malda irrigation Department that the land acquisition cases have already been dropped. The learned Single Judge, however, came to the conclusion that there is no order of the State Government to withdraw from the proceedings and land acquisition proceedings cannot be said to be cancelled and/or withdrawn on the basis of the Memo dated 25th August, 2000 issued by the Executive Engineer, Malda Irrigation Division.

( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge further observed that no decision was reached by the State Government to withdraw and/or cancel the land acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge referring to the Joint enquiry Report specifically observed that the excavation of earth was done from the lands of the petitioners. The learned Single Judge also specifically held that just after issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the said act, the possession of the lands were taken by the Government and it was the Government's responsibility to oppose the entry of the outsiders into the lands in question of the said petitioners. The learned Single Judge also held that the lands of the petitioners which were under acquisition proceeding were utilised as the contractors engaged by the Irrigation division excavated the earth from the said lands and therefore, the State government cannot deny that possession of the land in question was not taken. Since the learned Single Judge specifically held that the acquisition proceeding was not cancelled and/or withdrawn following the valid procedures, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document