Land acquisition compliance and company-acquisition withdrawal require notice, publication, and contemporaneous proof of possession.

Land acquisition proceedings were upheld where the contemporaneous record showed compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and service of Section 9 notice; bald allegations and unsupported objections were insufficient to invalidate the acquisition. The challenge was also treated as barred by laches, and possession was found to have been validly taken on the basis of the Panchanama, possession receipt, revenue entries and official correspondence. In a company acquisition, however, withdrawal under Section 48 could not be effected after compliance with Part VII requirements without notice to the beneficiary company, and such withdrawal had to be published in the Official Gazette; internal memos were ineffective.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and for alleged non-service of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (ii) Whether the challenge to the acquisition was barred by laches and whether possession of the land had already been taken. (iii) Whether withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in a company acquisition could be effected without notice to the beneficiary company and without publication of the withdrawal.

Issue (i): Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and for alleged non-service of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: The record showed that the State Government had constituted the Land Acquisition Committee and that the relevant reports and materials were placed before it. The pleadings in one matter did not contain a specific foundation for an of non-compliance with Rule 3, and the objections under Rule 4 were general and unsupported by particulars. The materials on record also showed service of notices under Section 9. The Court held that mere bald allegations of non-compliance, without particulars, could not sustain the quashing of acquisition proceedings when the contemporaneous record demonstrated compliance.

Conclusion: The findings of non-compliance with Rules 3 and 4 and of non-service of Section 9 notice were unsustainable, and the challenge failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the acquisition was barred by laches and whether possession of the land had already been taken.

Analysis: The writ petition challenging the notifications was filed after the acquisition process had substantially progressed, and the Court reiterated that delay and laches can defeat such challenges. On possession, the Panchanama, possession receipt, revenue entries, and official correspondence showed delivery of actual physical possession to the acquiring body. The Court applied the settled principle that in compulsory acquisition, possession may be validly taken through a Panchanama prepared in the presence of witnesses, and rejected reliance on later affidavits inconsistent with the contemporaneous record.

Conclusion: The challenge in the concerned matter was barred by laches, and possession had been validly taken.

Issue (iii): Whether withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in a company acquisition could be effected without notice to the beneficiary company and without publication of the withdrawal.

Analysis: The Court held that while the State may withdraw from acquisition before possession is taken, in a case under Part VII the company for whose benefit the land is acquired has a valuable interest and cannot be deprived of the acquisition without being heard. Once the statutory steps under Sections 39 to 42, including inquiry, consent, agreement, and publication, have been completed, unilateral withdrawal without notice to the company is not permissible. The Court also held that withdrawal under Section 48 must be notified in the Official Gazette; a mere internal memo is insufficient to effect legal withdrawal.

Conclusion: The withdrawal memos were invalid and liable to be quashed, and the State could not lawfully withdraw from the acquisition without notice to the company and without due publication.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition could not be set aside on the grounds accepted by the High Court, while the State's attempted withdrawal from acquisition was invalid for want of notice and proper publication. The acquisition proceedings were directed to be carried forward in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a land acquisition for a company, once the statutory requirements under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been complied with, the State cannot withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 without giving the beneficiary company an opportunity of hearing, and such withdrawal must be effected by a proper notification.

---