Withdrawal from land acquisition before possession was valid where encroachments made the public purpose unworkable.

Pending land acquisition proceedings do not divest the owner of title; title vests in the Government only on possession under section 16. Until then, the owner remains responsible for the land, and the State has no duty to protect the owner's interests merely because notices under sections 4, 6 or 9 have issued. Section 48 permits the State to withdraw from acquisition at any stage before possession is taken, without a prior hearing or a duty to give cogent reasons, and delay alone does not invalidate withdrawal. Where large-scale unauthorised hutments made the public purpose unworkable, the withdrawal was neither mala fide nor arbitrary, and section 24 did not compel the State to complete the acquisition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government could validly withdraw from acquisition under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and whether it could be compelled to complete the acquisition and take possession of the lands.

Analysis: Mere notification under section 4, declaration under section 6, or notice under section 9 does not divest the owner of title or rights in the land. Under section 16, title vests in the Government only when possession is taken. Until then, the owner continues to hold the land and remains responsible for it, while the State is under no duty to remove encroachments or protect the owner's interests merely because acquisition proceedings are pending. In that setting, section 48 permits the State to withdraw from acquisition at any stage before possession is taken, and the provision does not require prior hearing to the owner. Withdrawal is not rendered invalid merely because of delay, and the State is not obliged to furnish cogent reasons for deciding not to proceed with acquisition. On the facts, the land had become occupied by large-scale unauthorised hutments, making the intended public purpose unworkable, so the withdrawal was neither mala fide nor arbitrary. Section 24 does not justify compelling the State to acquire the land, since expenditure by the owner for removing encroachments could, with sanction, be claimed, and in any event the provision does not shift the risk of pending acquisition onto the State.

Conclusion: The withdrawal under section 48 was valid and the State could not be compelled to proceed with the acquisition.

---