Land acquisition by private settlement alone cannot bypass statutory denotification, and mala fides must be shown to quash the remaining acquisition.

A private settlement over one notified parcel did not authorise the Land Acquisition Officer to omit that land from the award without a Section 48 denotification, because once Sections 4 and 6 notifications issue the statutory acquisition process must proceed. That irregularity, however, did not by itself vitiate acquisition of the remaining land. The challenge based on absence of public purpose and mala fides also failed, as the record did not show that the acquisition was initiated at private behest or that the stated public purpose was unreal. Writ interference under Article 226 was therefore unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Land Acquisition Officer could decline to make an award in respect of one of the notified parcels merely because a private settlement had been entered into in relation to that parcel, without a notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (ii) Whether the remaining acquisition was liable to be quashed on the ground that the public purpose was unreal or that the proceedings were vitiated by mala fides, and whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the Land Acquisition Officer could decline to make an award in respect of one of the notified parcels merely because a private settlement had been entered into in relation to that parcel, without a notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: Once a notification under Section 4 and a declaration under Section 6 are issued, the land acquisition machinery must proceed to an award in respect of the lands notified unless the land is denotified in accordance with Section 48. A private settlement between the requisitioning body and interested persons cannot, by itself, confer power on the Land Acquisition Officer to omit a notified parcel from the award. At the same time, that irregularity does not automatically invalidate the acquisition of the other notified land if the public purpose remains intact and the acquisition is otherwise lawful.

Conclusion: The Officer ought to have proceeded in accordance with the statutory scheme, but the omission to award on one parcel did not by itself require quashing of the acquisition of the remaining parcel.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining acquisition was liable to be quashed on the ground that the public purpose was unreal or that the proceedings were vitiated by mala fides, and whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted.

Analysis: The record did not show that the acquisition was initiated at the instance of the private parties or that the stated public purpose lacked genuineness. The settlement was treated as an adjustment made in the perceived interests of the acquiring body, and the mere reduction in the area ultimately available under the settlement did not establish absence of need or bad faith. In land acquisition matters, writ relief is discretionary and the Court must weigh public interest against private grievance; on the facts, no sufficient basis existed to hold the acquisition tainted by mala fides or to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge on mala fides and lack of public purpose failed, and no interference under Article 226 was justified.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition challenge did not succeed, and the dismissal of the writ petition was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A private settlement or irregular omission in relation to one notified parcel does not, without proof that the public purpose is unreal or that the proceedings are mala fide, vitiate the acquisition of the remaining notified land; in writ jurisdiction, interference in land acquisition matters is governed by a discretion that must account for public interest.

---