Urgency acquisition possession vested the land in Government, barring withdrawal and confirming actual possession on the record.

Once possession is taken under the urgency powers in Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests absolutely in the Government free from encumbrances and Section 48 is no longer available for withdrawal from acquisition. The record showed actual, not merely symbolic, possession, supported by the possession certificate, award proceedings, communications, and payment-related entries, together with the presumption attached to official acts. The writ court was also competent to decide the possession dispute on documents and affidavits without oral evidence. On that basis, the challenge to the acquisition failed and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, after invocation of urgency powers and taking of possession under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State could withdraw from acquisition under Section 48; (ii) whether the possession recorded by the acquisition authorities was actual possession or merely symbolic possession; and (iii) whether the High Court could examine the factual controversy regarding possession on the basis of the record in writ proceedings.

Issue (i): whether, after invocation of urgency powers and taking of possession under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State could withdraw from acquisition under Section 48.

Analysis: Section 17(1) provides that on taking possession in cases of urgency, the land vests absolutely in the Government free from encumbrances. The scheme of the Act, read with the award proceedings and payment of eighty per cent of compensation under Section 17(3A), showed that the urgency procedure had been acted upon. Once possession is taken under Section 17(1), Section 48 does not remain available to the State, because withdrawal is confined to land of which possession has not been taken.

Conclusion: The State had no power to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 after possession had vested under Section 17(1); the challenge to the notification failed.

Issue (ii): whether the possession recorded by the acquisition authorities was actual possession or merely symbolic possession.

Analysis: Possession under the Act must be actual possession, but the court held that the contemporaneous record, including the possession certificate, the award, the reference court proceedings, the appellant's own communications, and the grant of interest from the date of possession, all pointed to actual taking over of possession. The statutory presumption attaching to official acts also supported the conclusion, and the contrary plea was inconsistent with the appellant's earlier stand.

Conclusion: The possession taken was treated as actual possession, not merely symbolic possession.

Issue (iii): whether the High Court could examine the factual controversy regarding possession on the basis of the record in writ proceedings.

Analysis: A writ court is not barred from deciding questions of fact where the controversy can be resolved from documents and affidavits and does not require oral evidence. On the materials before it, the High Court was competent to decide the issue of possession, and the dispute did not justify interference merely because the matter involved factual controversy.

Conclusion: The High Court was competent to adjudicate the possession dispute on the record available in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition had already vested in the Government upon lawful taking of possession under the urgency provisions, and the State could not thereafter withdraw the acquisition; the writ challenge therefore failed and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once possession is taken under the urgency powers in Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests absolutely in the Government and Section 48 cannot be invoked to withdraw from the acquisition; actual possession, not symbolic possession, is the governing test.

---