TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the acquisition notification issued under the urgency provisions was invalid because a small fraction of the acquired land contained houses and other structures, and whether the notification had to expressly recite that the land was waste or arable land. (ii) Whether the Government could withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 after possession had been taken.
Issue (i): Whether the acquisition notification issued under the urgency provisions was invalid because a small fraction of the acquired land contained houses and other structures, and whether the notification had to expressly recite that the land was waste or arable land.
Analysis: The land had been acquired for a large housing scheme, and the structures relied upon by the landowners were found to exist only on a fraction of the total extent. The governing test was the general nature and condition of the land, not the existence of a few superstructures on isolated portions. The earlier decision relied upon by the State was treated as laying down the correct principle that a small concentration of constructions on part of a large tract does not prevent invocation of the urgency power. The Court also held that the validity of the notification did not depend on an express recital that the land was waste or arable, because the statute did not require such recital in the notification itself. The challenge based on absence of urgency likewise failed, since the State had material showing a time-bound housing programme, scarcity of land, and the need to avoid delay.
Conclusion: The urgency notification was valid and the challenge to dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A failed; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the Government could withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 after possession had been taken.
Analysis: The alleged governmental decision to release the land was found to be only tentative and not a final withdrawal from acquisition. The communications relied upon themselves showed that further steps were contemplated, including ascertaining the Housing Board's expenditure before restoration could occur. More importantly, once possession had been taken and delivered to the acquiring body, the Government had no power to withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48.
Conclusion: Withdrawal from acquisition was not permissible after possession had been taken; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were upheld, the High Court's contrary decision was set aside, and the separate writ petition seeking release of the land also failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a large-scale acquisition for a public housing scheme, the presence of some structures on a minor portion of the land does not by itself invalidate invocation of urgency powers, the statute does not require an express recital that the land is waste or arable, and once possession has been taken the Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition.
TaxTMI 
