1987 (10) TMI 375 - SC - Indian Laws

State's Right to Withdraw Land Acquisition Before Possession Upheld

Special Land Acquisition Versus Godrej And Boyce

The Supreme Court upheld the State Government's decision to withdraw land acquisition proceedings, ruling that until possession is taken by the ... - Issues Involved: The issue involves the State Government's attempt to withdraw land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, challenged by the landowner who insists on the acquisition to proceed.Details of the Judgment:Land Acquisition Proceedings: The State Government initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act by notification in 1961, followed by a declaration in 1965. However, no further actions were taken, leading to encroachments on the land by trespassers. The landowner requested the Government to expedite the process, which was ignored. The landowner filed a petition in the High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Government to make the award and take possession of the land.State Government's Withdrawal: In 1981, the State Government decided to withdraw the land from acquisition under section 48 of the Act. The landowner challenged this decision as mala fide, alleging it was an attempt to defeat the relief sought in the writ petition. The High Court ruled in favor of the landowner, prompting the State Government to appeal.Court's Decision: The Supreme Court held that until possession is taken by the Government, the landowner retains rights over the land. Section 48 allows the State Government to withdraw from acquisition before possession, without causing irreparable harm to the landowner. The Court rejected the argument that withdrawal must be backed by reasons, stating the Government cannot be compelled to acquire land if the intended purpose cannot be achieved, especially in cases of encroachments.Compensation and Land Ownership: The Court clarified that the State is not obligated to take over land if the owner needs to protect it until possession. The State's decision to withdraw was deemed in the public interest and not mala fide. The Court referenced a similar case where the State was allowed to release lands from acquisition.Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the State Government's decision to withdraw the land from acquisition, setting aside the High Court's orders. The Court did not award costs, leaving the landowner to pursue any claims for compensation under section 48. The Court did not address a proposal for land exchange, leaving it to the landowner to pursue with the Government if desired.