Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
T.R.HANDA,VYOM PRAKASH GUPTA
RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
W. P. No. 180/73
Decided On : 10/21/1981
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 48 - WITHDRAWAL OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - POSSESSION TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT - ESTOPPEL - VALIDITY OF WITHDRAWAL NOTIFICATION - [SECTION 48, 17] - THE COURT HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT WITHDRAW FROM THE ACQUISITION OF LAND ONCE POSSESSION HAD BEEN TAKEN IN PURSUANCE TO THE AWARD. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ESTOPPED FROM WITHDRAWING FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS DUE TO THE STATEMENT OF ITS COUNSEL IN A PREVIOUS WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
THE PETITIONER CHALLENGED A NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, BY WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF HIS LAND WERE WITHDRAWN. THE PETITIONER ARGUED THAT THE NOTIFICATION WAS INVALID BECAUSE POSSESSION OF THE LAND HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ESTOPPED FROM WITHDRAWING FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS DUE TO A STATEMENT MADE BY ITS COUNSEL IN A PREVIOUS WRIT PETITION.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT POSSESSION OF THE LAND HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 28-10-1969, AFTER THE DATE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE AWARD. THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ESTOPPED FROM WITHDRAWING FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS DUE TO THE STATEMENT OF ITS COUNSEL IN A PREVIOUS WRIT PETITION.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT COULD WITHDRAW FROM THE ACQUISITION OF LAND ONCE POSSESSION HAD BEEN TAKEN IN PURSUANCE TO THE AWARD. 2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT WAS ESTOPPED FROM WITHDRAWING FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS DUE TO THE STATEMENT OF ITS COUNSEL IN A PREVIOUS WRIT PETITION.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT WITHDRAW FROM THE ACQUISITION OF LAND ONCE POSSESSION HAD BEEN TAKEN IN PURSUANCE TO THE AWARD. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ESTOPPED FROM WITHDRAWING FROM THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS DUE TO THE STATEMENT OF ITS COUNSEL IN A PREVIOUS WRIT PETITION.
Final Decision: THE COURT QUASHED THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS ASSESSED AT RS. 300.
Vyom Prakash Gupta, J.—The petitioner has challenged a notification dated 26th May, 19/2 (Annexure U) issued under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter shortly called the Act), by which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land measuring 35 bighas 2 biswas belonging to the petitioner have been withdrawn.
2. The brief facts are that a notification (Annexure-C) under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4-10-1967 for acquiring petitioners land measuring 35 bighas 2 biswas. Another notification under Section 6 (Annexure-E) was issued on 25 9-1968, Objections under Section 9 (Annexure-G) were filed by the petitioner and an award (Annexure-H) was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 12-7-1969. By this award the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation payable to the petitioner but it was ordered that the compensation would be paid after getting clearance from the Commissioner (Revenue) Himachal Pradesh.
3. Objections under Section 18 of the Act were filed by the petitioner as well as by the respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh). The petitioner withdrew his objections as is mentioned in Para 4 of the writ petition and the objections of the respondent were rejected on 29-1-1972 (Annexure-M). The petitioner thereafter filed applications (Annexures N and O) for the release of the compensation but the same was not paid. The petitioner also filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 4 of 1970 in this court claiming that the directions contained in the award, dated 12-7-1969 to the effect that the compensation payable to the petitioner would be released to him after obtaining clearance from the Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, be withdrawn. This writ petition was decided by Honble R. S. Pathak, Chief Justice (as he then was) on 30-31972. The petition was dismissed vide Annexure Q on the statement of the counsel for the respondent-State who had stated that the payment of the compensation will be made to the petitioner. It appears that even after the decision of this Civil Writ Petition No. 4 of 1970, no compensation was paid to the petitioner.
4. The respondent issued a notification on 26-5-1972 (Annexure-U) by which the proceedings of acquisition of land were withdrawn under the provisions of Section 48, sub-section (1) of the Act. The petitioner has now challenged the validity of this notification (Annexure-U) on the ground that the said notification could not be issued.
5. We have heard Kedar Ishwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri H. K. Paul, the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notification under Section 48 could not be issued because the proceedings for acquisition of the disputed land had been completed and the possession of the disputed land had been taken over by the State on 28-10-1969 in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. It was also contended that the respondents were estopped from issuing the notification in view of the undertaking and the decision in C. W. P. No. 4 of 1970 decided on 30-3-1972.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that possession of the acquired property had not been taken by the respondents under the award. The possession was already with the respondents. A reference was made to copies of jamabandis (Annexures A and B) wherein the petitioner is shown to be the owner of the land while the possession is with Bashindgan-Deh.’ It was also contended that decision in C. W. P. No. 4 of 1970 has no relevancy aad does no! create any estoppel.
8. We have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.
9. The main controversy between the parties is regarding Section 48 of the Act, which reads as follows: "48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.- (1) Except in the case provided for in Section 36, the Government shall be at liberty t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
