Standing and lapse in land acquisition: beneficiary committee could challenge termination, and proceedings could not end without valid withdrawal.

A Municipal Committee that requested land acquisition for a public park had standing to challenge an order dropping the proceedings because the impugned order directly affected an acquisition undertaken for its benefit. The acquisition could not be treated as having lapsed or been abandoned without a valid withdrawal by the State Government under the governing land acquisition law. In the absence of material showing lawful withdrawal, the Collector had no competence to terminate the proceedings on a supposed lapse. The order dropping acquisition was therefore unsustainable, and the acquisition proceedings were directed to continue in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Municipal Committee had locus standi to challenge the order dropping the acquisition proceedings. (ii) Whether the acquisition could be treated as having lapsed or abandoned, and whether the Collector was competent to drop the proceedings on that basis.

Issue (i): Whether the Municipal Committee had locus standi to challenge the order dropping the acquisition proceedings.

Analysis: The acquisition under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued at the request of the Municipal Committee for construction of a public park, with the cost to be borne by it under Sections 55 and 88 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The Committee had been impleaded in earlier litigation and had also opposed the application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner. The order challenged before the High Court directly affected the acquisition undertaken for the Committee's benefit, making it a person aggrieved by the decision.

Conclusion: The objection to locus standi was not tenable and was in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquisition could be treated as having lapsed or abandoned, and whether the Collector was competent to drop the proceedings on that basis.

Analysis: There was no notification or other material showing withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Additional Deputy Commissioner proceeded on the view that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 had deemed to lapse, but that approach was inconsistent with the governing law and with the disapproval of the earlier Full Bench view on which reliance had been placed. In the absence of a valid withdrawal by the State Government, the Collector had no basis to terminate the acquisition proceedings on the ground of lapse.

Conclusion: The order dropping the acquisition proceedings was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquisition-related order succeeded, the writ petition was allowed, and the acquisition proceedings were directed to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A person at whose instance land is acquired and who is directly affected by an order terminating the acquisition is a person aggrieved with standing to challenge it, and acquisition proceedings cannot be treated as lapsed or abandoned in the absence of a valid withdrawal under the governing statutory provision.

---