Land acquisition vesting depends on lawful possession, and withdrawal remains open until possession is validly taken.

Under the Land Acquisition Act, withdrawal from acquisition remains permissible until possession is lawfully taken, because vesting in the Government occurs only on actual possession under section 16 or, in urgency cases, under section 17(1). Notifications under sections 4 and 6, or notice under section 9(1), do not by themselves transfer title or create statutory vesting. Section 17(1) also requires an express governmental direction to the Collector to take possession in an urgency situation; urgency alone is insufficient. On the stated facts, no such direction or lawful possession was shown, so no vesting could be inferred to defeat withdrawal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act had vested in the Government so as to bar withdrawal from acquisition under section 48(1). (ii) Whether section 17(1) was attracted so that possession could be treated as having vested in the Government after notice under section 9(1) without an express direction by the Government to take possession.

Issue (i): Whether the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act had vested in the Government so as to bar withdrawal from acquisition under section 48(1).

Analysis: Section 48(1) permits withdrawal from acquisition so long as possession has not been taken. Vesting in the Government occurs only when the Collector takes possession under section 16 or, in urgent cases, under section 17(1). Mere issuance of notifications under sections 4, 6 or a notice under section 9(1) does not by itself transfer title or cause statutory vesting.

Conclusion: The lands did not vest in the Government merely because acquisition proceedings had advanced to the stage of notification or notice; withdrawal remained legally permissible unless possession had been validly taken.

Issue (ii): Whether section 17(1) was attracted so that possession could be treated as having vested in the Government after notice under section 9(1) without an express direction by the Government to take possession.

Analysis: Section 17(1) applies only where the appropriate Government, in a case of urgency, directs the Collector to take possession. The statutory phrase "whenever the appropriate Government so directs" qualifies the taking of possession, not merely the declaration of urgency. In the absence of material showing such a direction and actual taking of possession under section 17(1), vesting under that provision cannot be presumed.

Conclusion: Section 17(1) was not established on the record, and no vesting in the Government could be inferred on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The legal position was that the Government could withdraw from acquisition until possession was lawfully taken, and the appellants failed to establish any statutory vesting that would defeat such withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Land Acquisition Act, vesting follows only lawful possession taken under section 16 or section 17(1), and section 17(1) requires an express governmental direction to the Collector to take possession in an urgency case.

---