File noting is not a binding withdrawal from acquisition, and Article 14 cannot protect unauthorized construction on acquired land.

A ministerial file noting does not by itself amount to a final governmental decision to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the decision must be formalised, authenticated and communicated before it operates as an executive act. The Court also held that refusal to de-notify acquired land was not arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14 where the land had been validly acquired, possession was taken later, and the constructions were unauthorized. Equality cannot compel the State to repeat an illegality or grant relief on non-identical comparators, so the acquisition stood and possession had to be surrendered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a ministerial noting in the official file amounted to a final decision of the Government to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (ii) Whether the refusal to de-notify the acquired land was vitiated by arbitrariness or discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether a ministerial noting in the official file amounted to a final decision of the Government to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: A decision of the Government must be expressed in the name of the President or Governor, authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, and communicated to the affected parties before it can operate as an executive act. Mere file notings are internal opinions and do not by themselves constitute an enforceable order. In the context of land acquisition, withdrawal from acquisition also has to be made public by appropriate notification, because secrecy in such matters would defeat the public purpose and permit arbitrary release of acquired land. A provisional or tentative noting can always be reviewed or reversed before it is translated into a formal order.

Conclusion: The noting dated 8.6.1999 did not amount to a final governmental decision to withdraw from acquisition, and the appellants could not rely on it as a concluded exercise of power under Section 48(1).

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to de-notify the acquired land was vitiated by arbitrariness or discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The land had already been validly acquired for planned development, the appellants entered into possession long after the acquisition had attained finality, and the structures were raised without sanctioned permission and in violation of the statutory prohibition on transfer of acquired land. Equality does not require the State to repeat an illegality or grant relief merely because some other cases may have been dealt with differently. The alleged comparisons with other released lands were not shown to be on identical facts, and the public purpose for the Vasant Kunj residential scheme remained intact. The Court also treated the large-scale construction and commercial use of the complex as unauthorized and inconsistent with the plea for equitable relief.

Conclusion: The refusal to withdraw from acquisition was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and no relief could be granted on the basis of Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition was allowed to stand, the challenge to the Government's refusal to de-notify the land failed, and the appellants were directed to surrender possession.

Ratio Decidendi: A governmental file noting does not amount to a binding decision unless it is crystallized into a formal, authenticated and communicated order, and Article 14 cannot be invoked to compel the State to repeat an illegality or protect unauthorized constructions raised on acquired land.

---