Supreme Court of India
RAJINDER SINGH BHATTI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 306
- Decided
- 3 March 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- D K JAIN
Holding
Lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 11A does not constitute a withdrawal under Section 48(1), and any withdrawal under Section 48(1) must be published in the official gazette.
Summary
The appellants, owners of approximately 160 kanals of land in Jagadhri, Haryana, challenged the State's failure to make a compensation award within two years of the declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that the statutory lapse under Section 11A amounted to a withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48(1) and that they were therefore entitled to compensation under Section 48(2). The State contended that lapse under Section 11A is distinct from a voluntary withdrawal and that no formal decision to withdraw had been published in the official gazette. The Supreme Court examined the statutory language of Sections 11, 11A and 48, holding that the word "withdraw" in Section 48(1) requires a conscious, voluntary decision by the Government, which must be notified in the official gazette, and that a lapse under Section 11A does not satisfy this requirement. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellants' claim under Section 48(2) was not maintainable. The Court also affirmed that any withdrawal under Section 48(1) must be published in the official gazette. All the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 11A, caused by the Government's failure to approve the award within two years, amounts to a withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether a decision by the State Government to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48(1) must be published in the official gazette.
Legislation cited
- General Clauses Act, 1897s. 21
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 11-A, s. 4, s. 48, s. 48-A, s. 5, s. 5-A, s. 6, s. 9
- Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984
- Right to Information Act, 2005
Subjects
land acquisitionSection 11ASection 48withdrawalcompensationofficial gazettestatutory lapseinterpretation
Judgment
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 964
A RAJINDER SINGH BHATTI AND ORS. .
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos.. 4117-4118 of 2001 etc.)
MARCH 3, 2009
B
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
r
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
c ss. 11A, 48 (1) and (2) - Withdraw/ of acquisition
proceedings - Lapse of acquisition proceedings - Due to
failure to pass award within two years from publication of
declaration, on account of non-approval of proposed award
by Government - Held: The lapse of acquisition proceedings
D
uls. 11A would not tantamount to withdrawal of acquisition •
proceedings Therefore, claim for compensation u/s. 48 (2) not
maintainable.
s. 48 (1) - Decision of withdrawal of acquisition -
Publication of, in official gazette - Held: Such decision is
E required to be published in official gazette.
The questions for consideration in the present
appeals were (1) whether in view of the decision of the
Government in not approving the award proposed by the
F eouector, the award could not be made within the period
of two years from the date of publication of declaration
(final notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act)
and the acquisition of land lapsed, would such lapse of
acquisition proceedings amount to withdrawal from the
a~quisition by the State Government under Section 48(1)
G
of the Act ? and (2) Whether the decision of the State
G.overnment for withdrawal from the acquisition u/s. 48(1)
is mandatorily required to be published in the official
gazette? ...
H 964
RAJINDER SINGH BHATII AND ORS. v. STATE OF 965
HARYANA AND ORS.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court A
HELD: 1.1 The statutory lapse of acquisition
proceedings u/s. 11A of Land Acquisitio~ Act, 1894 as a
result of non-grant of approval of proposed award by the
State Government or for any other reason would not
8
tantamount to withdrawal from acquisition by the State
Government as contemplated u/s. 48(1 ). As a necessary
corollary, no claim for compensation could be made
under Section 48(2) of the Act. Section 11A and the
consequence provided therein i.e., lapse of acquisition C
proceedings in the event of the award having not been
made within a period of two years from the date of
publication of the declaration u/s. 6 is entirely distinct and
different than the decision that the Government may take
for withdrawal from the acquisition u/s. 48(1), provided
./ possession has not been taken. It is only in a case where D
the Government withdraws from the acquisition u/s. 48(1 ),
that by virtue of Section 48(2), the claim for
compensation for the damage suffered by the owner in
consequence of the acquisition proceedings together
with costs could be made. (Para 23) (976-D-G] E
1.2 In the context of Section 48, the word "withdraw"
is indicative of the voluntary and conscious decision of
' the Government for withdrawal from the acquisition;
statutory lapse u/s. 11-A is entirely different. The object F
of Section 11-A is to arrest delay in making award. An
obligation is cast on the Collector u/s. 11 •A to make the
award within the time prescribed therein failing which
statutory consequence follows namely, acquisition
proceedings lapse automatically. [Para 24) (976-H; 977- G
A-BJ
Abdul Majeed Sahib and Anr. vs. District Collector and
Ors. 1997 (1) sec 297, relied on.
2. Decision of the Government for withdrawal from H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.
A acquisition has to be published in the official gazette. The '
Act provides for the publication of notification and
declaration u/s. 4 and 6 of the Act in official gazette.
Obviously the withdrawal from land acquisition
proceedings by taking resort to Section 48(1) of the Act
B also must be in the like manner. [Para 27) [978-B-E]
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1998
(4) sec 387, relied on.
Abdul Majeed Sahib and Anr. vs. District Collector and
C Ors. 1997 (1) SCC 297, referred to.
3. In the instant case, there is no decision by the
Government for withdrawal from the acquisition. Even if
it is assumed that such decision was taken on the file,
0 since such decision has not been published in the official ,
gazette, there is no withdrawal from the acquisition by the
State Government within the meaning of Section 48(1) of
the Act. The application u/s. 48(2) of the Act was,
therefore, rightly held to be not maintainable. [Para 29)
E [980-C-D]
Case Law Reference:
1997 (1) sec 291 Relied on. Para 24
Referred to Para 27
F
1998 (4) sec 387' Relied on. Para 27
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4117of2001.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2000 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Revision No. 723 of
2000.
WITH
H C.A. Nos. 7019-7020/2001, 7023-7024/2001, 7321-7322/
RAJINDER SINGH BHATII AND ORS. v. STATE OF 967
HARYANA AND ORS.
2001, 7323-7324/2001, 1380-1381/2009, 1382-1383 of 2009. A
P.S. Patwalia, TVS Raghavendra Sreyye, Ambuj Agrawal,
Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Nikhil Nayyar for the Petitioner (in C.A.
No. 4117 - 18 of 2001).
Nikhil Nayyar, TVS Raghavendra Sreyye, Ambuj Agrawal B
and Aman Preet Singh Rahi for the Petitioner (in rest of the
.,
.
matters) .
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Umang Shankar, Sanjay Singh and
U.S. Prasad for the Respondent. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP © Nos.18030-
18031/01 and SLP © Nos.18231-18232/2001.
D
2. This judgment will dispose of a group of fourteen civil
appeals by special leave. Since common questions of law have
been involved in all these appeals, it is appropriate to deal with
· and decide them by a common judgment.
E
3. We will confine ourselves only to the facts of Civil
Appeals 4117-4118/2001 for the facts of this appeal are similar
to the facts of the other appeals comprised in this group.
4. Rajinder Singh (1st appellant) is the owner of the land
comprising in Khewat No. 609/793 Khasra No.125/21/3(0-9), F
127/1/2(2-4), 2(8-0), 3(8-18), 8(5-0), 9/1(6-12), 125/2(8-0),
23(8-0), 24(4-10) total ad measuring 51 kanals 3 marlas.
Arkinder Pal Singh (2nd appellant) owns the land in Khewat No.
610/794 Khasra No.125/2/3(1-5), 3/2(2-9), 7/2(2-0), 8(8-0), 9/
1(1-0),13(8-0), 14(8-0), 15(4-10), 17(8-8), 18(8-0) total G
admeasuring 51 kanals 12 marlas. They also jointly own land
comprising in Khewat No.611/795 Khasra No.124/14/2(5-16),
15/2(5-11), 30/2(0-8), 31(0-8), 125/9/2(6-4), 11/1/2/(1-7), 19(8-
0), 20(7-19), 21/1(4-4), 124/16/1(3-10), 16/4(1-16), 125/1/2(4-
8), 12(8-0) total admeasuring 57 kanals 6 marlas. The total land H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 3 S.C.R.
A owned by the appellants is 160 kanals 16 marlas situate in
Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
5. The government of Haryana through Urban Estate
Department, at the instance of Haryana Urban Development
B Authority ('HUDA') sought to acquire the land ( 326.43 acres)
in Sector 20, Jagadhri, for the public purpose namely; the
development and utilization of land for residential, institutional,
commercial, communication, transport and wholesale market
etc. A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land
C Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued in this
regard that was published in the official gazette on March 7,
1996. The aforementioned land of the appellants was included
therein. The appellants filed objections under Section 5-A of the
Act before the Land Acquisition Collector. The objections made
by the appellants were not accepted and the declaration (final
D notification) under Section 6 of the Act was issued and
published in the official gazette on March 6, 1997. The Land
Acquisition Collector then issued notices under Section 9 of the
Act calling upon the landowners to make their claim of
compensation for all interests in the said land that they may
E have. The appellants filed their claim before the Land
Acquisition Collector. The appellants were then informed by the
Land Acquisition Collector to remain present in his office on
March 3, 1999 at 11.30 AM. According to the appellants, they
remained present in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector
F · on March 3, 1999 whole day but no award came to be
announced. Since the award was not announced by the Land
Acquisition Collector within two years of the publication of
declaration made under Section 6, by virtue of Section 11-A
of the Act, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land
G lapsed.
6. The appellants treated the lapse of the acquisition
proceedings as withdrawal from the acquisition by the
Government and, consequently, they filed their claim of
compensation for the damage suffered by them under Section
H
RAJINDER SINGH BHATTI AND ORS. v. STATE OF 969
HARYANAAND ORS. [RM. LODHA, J.]
48(2) of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban A
Estate, Panchkula. The compensation was demanded on
diverse grounds, inter alia, that their various units and
establishments got affected by the proposed acquisition; that
because of proposed acquisition they lost interest in the land
and entered into an agreement to purchase the land elsewhere B
for establishing their industrial units, poultry farm etc., that money
was invested for the purchase of that land but because of
withdrawal from acquisition, the purchase agreements were
cancelled and the vendors forfeited the earnest money. Since
the merits of the claim have not been examined either by the c
Land Acquisition Collector or High Court, it is not necessary
to give further details of compensation claimed by the
appellants.
7. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his communication
dated September 27, 1999 informed the appellants that their D
claim under Section 48(2) of the Act was not maintainable in
view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Majeed
Sahib And Anr. vs. District Collector And Ors., (1997) 1 SCC
297.
E
8. The appellants challenged the order/communication of
the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula by approaching High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Single Judge of that Court
dismissed the entire group of revision applications on
November 7, 2000 and upheld the view of the Land Acquisition F
Collector, Panchkula that claim of compensation under Section
48 (2) of the Act was not maintainable.
9. The appellants sought review of the order dated
November 7, 2000. The review applications also came to be
dismissed by the High Court. It is from these orders that the G
matters have reached this Court.
10. At this stage we may notice that vide Order dated May
1, 2008, this Court directed the State of Haryana and HUDA
to file an affidavit indicating their stand with regard to the H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 3 S.C.R.
A provisions of Sections 11-A, 48 & 48-A of the Act. In response ..
thereto, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of these authorities.
The stand of these authorities is that the provisions of Section
11-A and 48 of the Act are distinct and different. As per Section
11-A, the Collector is under a statutory obligation to make an
B award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the
date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the
Act. Failure on the part of the Collector to make the award
within the said period, subject to the exclusion of the time as
provided in the explanation attached to Section 11-A entails
c lapse of acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, Section
48 empowers the Government to withdraw from the acquisition
of any land of which possession has not been taken. In order
to withdraw from the acquisition, there has to be publication of
notification withdrawing notification under Section 4(1) and the
D declaration published under Section 6 of the Act. As there was
no notification issued and published under Section 48(1) of the
Act withdrawing from acquisition of the land of the appellants
covered under Notifications dated March 7, 1996 and March
6, 1997 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively, the
E appellants are not entitled to any compensation under Section
48(2) of the Act. They stated that acquisition proceedings have
not been withdrawn but lapsed for the reason that the Collector
failed to make an award under Section 11-A of the Act relating
to the land of the appellants. With regard to Section 48-A, it
was submitted that the said section has not been incorporated
F in the Act for all intents and purposes. Its application is confined
to the schemes framed by the Urban Improvement Trust under
Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922.
11. An additional affidavit came to be filed by the 1st
G appellant after the afore-referred response was filed by the
respondents. In his additional affidavit, he stated that he made
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and has >
procured (i) copy of the letter dated March 5, 1999 from the
Chief Administrator, HUDA; (ii) three pages of file notings
H regarding the decision not to approve acquisition of 326.43
RAJINDER SINGH BHATII AND ORS. v. STATE OF 971
HARYANA AND ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
,. acres of land in Sector 20, Jagadhri; (iii) copy of office memo A
... dated January 10, 1997 and (iv) copy of letter dated March 18,
1999 of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Jagadhri. The 1st appellant,
thus, stated in the additional affidavit that the aforesaid
documents would show that the competent authority had not
approved the acquisition of 326.43 acres of land in Sector 20, B
Jagadhri as the proposal was not viable and that the intention
of the Government not to acquire the land amounted to
withdrawal from the acquisition for all intents and purposes.
12. In reply to the additional affidavit, the respondents 2
to 4 reiterated that the intention of the State Government not to c
acquire the land is not a withdrawal from acquisition under
Section 48(1) of the Act.
; 13. Mr. P.S.Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the
'
appellants submitted at the outset, and in our view fairly, that D
Section 48-A has not been incorporated in the Act. He did not
rely upon Section 48-A. He referred to the file notings regarding
the decision of the Government not to approve the acquisition
of 326.43 acres of land in Sector 20, Jagadhri and
communication to that effect to the Land Acquisition Collector E
and submitted that non-approval of acquisition by the State
Government was nothing but a voluntary withdrawal from the
acquisition and communication of that decision to the Land
Acquisition Collector was sufficient publication of the decision
of the Government to withdraw from acquisition. The learned
_.. senior counsel would submit that Section 48 does not speak
F
of notification being issued for withdrawal of acquisition and,
therefore, the decision of the State Government in not approving
the acquisition was a decision of withdrawal from the acquisition
and, the petition for compensation made by the appellant&
under Section 48 (2) of the Act was maintainable. G
' 14. The counsel for the respondent No.1 as well as
respondent Nos. 2 to 4, however, urged that first proviso to
Section 11 mandates the Collector to seek approval from the
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A appropriate government before making the award. In the "
present case, the Collector sought approval of the award from
the appropriate government but the government did not grant
approval and, thus, award could not be made by the Collector.
It was submitted by the learned counsel that non-grant of
8 approval by the State Government is not withdrawal from
acquisition. Since award was not made within a period of two
years from the date of publication of the declaration, the entire
proceedings for the acquisition of the land lapsed. Thus,
according to the learned counsel, the State Government had
C not withdrawn from the acquisition and there being no
notification issued to that effect, petition for compensation
under Section 48(2) of the Act was not maintainable.
15. On the contentions urged, two points arise for our
consideration:
D
(one) Whether in view of the decision of the government
in not approving the award proposed by the Collector, the
award could not be made within the period of two years
from the date of publication of declaration (final notification
under Section 6) and the acquisition of land lapsed, would
E
such lapse of acquisition proceedings amount to
withdrawal from the acquisition by the State Government
under Section 48(1) of the Act?
(two) Whether the decision of the State Government for
F withdrawal from the acquisition under Section 48 (1) is
mandatorily required to be published in the official gazette?
re : point (one)
16. Section 4 of the Act provides for publication of
G preliminary notification whenever it appears to the appropriate
government that land is needed or likely to be needed for any
public purpose. Inter alia, such notification is required to be
published in the official gazette.
H
RAJINDER SINGH BHATII AND ORS. v. STATE OF 973
HARYANA AND ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
,. 17. The person interested in the land having been notified A
under Section 4 may file objections to the acquisition of that
land and other aspects as provided in Section 5-A.
18. When the appropriate government is satisfied after
considering the report from the Collector, if any, made under B
Section 5-A(2) that any particular land is needed for a public
purpose, as per Section 6 of the Act a declaration shall be
made and, inter alia, published in the official gazette. The said
declaration is conclusive evidence that land is needed for a
public purpose.
c
19. Section 9 makes a provision for notice to persons
interested in the land intimating them the government's intention
to take possession and that they may claim compensation for
their interest in such land.
" > D
20. Section 11 provides for an enquiry into measurements,
value and claims and award by the Collector. It reads as follows:
"11. (1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which
the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall
proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any E
person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given
under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section
8, and into the value of the land at the date of the
" publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section
(1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming F
the compensation and shall make an award under his hand
of-
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be G
allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said.compensation among
all the persons known or believed to be interested
H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has ..
information, whether or not they have respectively -.,
appeared before him:
Provided that no award shall be made by the
Collector under this sub-section without the previous
approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer
as the appropriate Government may authorise in this
behalf:
Provided further that it shall be competent for the
c appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may
make such award without such approval in such class of
cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this
behalf.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied
that all the persons interested in the land who appeared
before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be
included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed
by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may,
without making further enquiry, make an award according
to the terms of such agreement.
(3) The determination of compensation for any land under •
sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination
F of compensation in respect of other lands in the same
locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other
provisions of this Act.
-
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration
G Act, 1908, (16of1908), no agreement made under sub-
section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act."
21. Section 11-A provides as follows:
"11-A. The Collector shall make an award under Section
H 11 within a period of two years from the date of the
RAJINDER SINGH BHATII AND ORS. v. STATE OF 975
HARYANA AND ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
,. publication of the declaration and if no award is made A
. within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition
of the land shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said declaration
has been published before the commencement of the Land B
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be
made within a period of two years from such
.., commencement.
Explanation -In computing the period of two years
referred to in this section, the period during which any c
-1. action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said
declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be
excluded."
.. • 22. Section 48 enables the State Government to withdraw D
from the acquisition in the circumstances mentioned therein. It
reads:
"48 - (1) Except in the case provided for in Section 36,
the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the
acquisition of any land of which possession has not been E
taken.
(2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any
... such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount
of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner F
- in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings
thereunder, and shall pay such amount to be person
interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by
him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act
relating to the said land. G
(3)The provisions of Part Ill of this Act shall apply, so
far as may be, to the determination of the compensation
payable under this section."
23. From the perusal of Section 11, particularly first proviso H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A thereto, it is apparent that the approval of the appropriate
..
government to the award proposed by the Collector is ...
mandatory. In other words, it is imperative for the Collector to
seek previous approval of the appropriate government to the
award that he proposes to make unless the case is covered
B by Section 11(2). If an award under Section 11 is not made by
the Collector within a period of two years from the date of the
publication of the declaration, the entire proceedings for the
acquisition of the land shall lapse under Section 11-A. Section
11-A provides maximum period within which the award from
the date of the publication of the declaration has to be made.
c In default, the consequence is that the entire proceedings for
the acquisition would lapse. Section 48(1) empowers the State
Government to withdraw from the acquisition of any land subject
D
to two conditions namely; (i) the case is not provided under
Section 36 and (ii) that possession has not been taken. Section
11-A and the consequence provided therein i.e., lapse of
-
acquisition proceedings in the event of the award having not
been made within a period of two years from the date of
publication of the declaration under Section 6 is entirely distinct
and different than the decision that the government may take
E for withdrawal from the acquisition under Section 48(1 ),
provided possession has not been taken. It is only in a case
where the Government withdraws from the acquisition under
Section 48(1), that by virtue of Section 48(2), the claim for •
compensation for the damage suffered by the owner in
F consequence of the acquisition proceedings together with costs ....
could be made. The statutory lapse of acquisition proceedings
under Section 11-A as a result of non-grant of approval of
proposed award by the State Government or for any other
reason would not tantamount to withdrawal from acquisition by
G the State Government as contemplated under Section 48(1).
As a necessary corollary, no claim for compensation could be
made under Section 48(2) of the Act.
24. In the context of Section 48, the word "withdraw" is
indicative of the voluntary and conscious decision of the
H
RAJINDER SINGH BHATII AND ORS. v. STATE OF 977
HARYANA AND ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.)
~
government for withdrawal from the acquisition; statutory lapse A
under Section 11-A is entirely different. The object of Section
11-A is to arrest delay in making award. An obligation is cast
on the Collector under Section 11-A to make the award within
the time prescribed therein failing which statutory consequence
follows namely, acquisition proceedings lapse automatically. B
This Court in Abdul Majeed said:
. "The word 'withdraws' would indicate that the Government
by its own action voluntarily withdraws from the acquisition;
the Government has necessarily to withdraw from the
acquisition, in other words, there should be publication of c
the withdrawal of the notification published under Section
4(1) and the declaration published under Section 6 by
exercising the power under Section 48 (1). Sub-section (2)
~
of Section 48 would then apply. In this case, admittedly,
the Government had not exercised the power under D
Section 48(1) withdrawing from the notification under
Section 4(1) or the declaration under Section 6. The
statutory lapse under Section 11-A is distinct different from
voluntary act on the part of the Government. Therefore, it
must be by withdrawal of the notification by voluntary act E
on the part of the State under Section 48(1 ). Under these
circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to avail of the
remedy of sub-section (2) of Section 48."
25. As a matter of fact, the Land Acquisition Collector F
followed Abdul Majeed and held that the claim of the appellants
under Section 48(2) was not maintainable.
26. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Collector
moved the government seeking its approval for the proposed
award. This was im(>erative as per the first proviso to Section G
11. The government considered the matter and did not approve
the proposed award. When no such approval was granted by
the government, the Collector could not have made the award
and in fact he did not. As a result thereof, the acquisition
H
,,
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.
A proceedings lapsed. The lapse of acquisition proceedings in '
the circumstances under Section 11-A cannot and would not
amount to withdrawal from acquisition by the government under
Section 48(1). We answer the point (one) in negative.
re : point (two)
B
27. The question now needs to be considered is: whether
the decision of the Government for withdrawal of acquisition >
under Section 48(1) is required to be published in official
gazette ? It is true that 8ection 48 does not in express terms
G require the decision of the government for withdrawal of
acquisition to be published in the official gazette. In Abdul
Majeed, this Court has held that there should be publication of
the withdrawal of the notification published under Section 4(1)
and declaration under Section 6 by exercising power under
D Section 48(1). Even on first principles, such requirement •
appears to be implicit. The Act provides for the publication of
notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act
in official gazette. Obviously the withdrawal from land
a9quisition proceedings by taking resort to Section 48(1) of the
E Act also must be in the like manner. As a matter of fact, this
aspect is no more res integra. In the case of Larsen & Toubro
Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat And Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 387, the
identical contentions which have been advanced before us by
the senior counsel were raised in that case. Section 21 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 was also pressed into service
F
there. This Court considered:
"It was submitted by Mr. Salve that Section 48 of the Act
did not contemplate issue of any notification and
withdrawal from the acquisition could be by order
G simpliciter. He said that Sections 4 and 6 talked of
notifications being issued under those provisions but there
was no such mandate in Section 48. It was thus contended
that when the statute did not require to issue any
notification for withdrawal from the acquisition, reference
H to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was not correct.
-""
RAJINDER SINGH BHATII AND ORS. v. STATE OF 979
HARYANA AND ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
• Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is as under: A
"21. Power to issue, to include power to add to, to
amend, vary or rescind, notifications, orders, rules
or bye-laws.-Where by any Central Act, or
Regulation, a power to issue notifications, orders,
B
rules, or bye-laws is conferred, then that power
includes a power, exercisable in the like manner
-I
and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if
any) to add to, amend, vary or rescind any
notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued."
c
Mr. Salve said that Section 21 expressly referred to the
powers being given to issue notifications etc. under an Act
or Regulation and under this that power included power to
withdraw or rescind any notification in a similar fashion. It
was therefore submitted that when Section 48 did not D
empower the State Government to issue any notification
and it could not be read into that provision that withdrawal
had to be issued by a notification. His argument, therefore,
appeared to be that on correct interpretation of Section 21
of the General Clauses Act before reaching the stage of E
Section 48, the State Government could withdraw
'' •(
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act by issuing
notifications withdrawing or rescinding earlier notifications
and that would be the end to the acquisition proceedings.
We do not think that Mr. Salve is quite right in his F
.. submissions. When Sections 4 and 6 notifications are
issued, much has been done towards the acquisition
process and that process cannot be reversed merely by
rescinding those notifications. Rather it is Section 48 under
which, after withdrawal from acquisition is made,
G
compensation due for any damage suffered by the owner
during the course of acquisition proceedings is
determined and given to him. It is, therefore, implicit that
withdrawal from acquisition has to be notified.
H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A Principles of law are, therefore, well settled. A notification
in the Official Gazette is required to be issued if the State -
Government decides to withdraw from the acquisition
under Section 48 of the Act of any land of which ..,
possession has not been taken".
B
28. In view of the legal position exposited by this Court in
the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd., with which we respectfully
agree, we hold, as it must be, that decision of the government
for withdrawal from acquisition has to be published in the official
~azette. We answer point (two) in affirmative.
c
29. In so far as present case is concerned, firstly, there is
no decision by the government for withdrawal from the
~cquisition. Even if we assume for the argument sake that such
decision was taken on the file, since such decision has not
D been published in the official gazette, there is no withdrawal
from the acquisition by the State Government within the meaning
cpf Section 48(1) of the Act. The application under Section 48(2)
<Pf the Act was, therefore, rightly held to be not maintainable.
30. In view of what we have discussed above, all these
E
appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed
with no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed. .
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search