Withdrawal from land acquisition requires possession to remain un taken; uncommunicated file noting creates no enforceable right.

Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be invoked only before possession of the acquired land was taken; once actual possession was established, the land vested absolutely in the Government under Section 16 and the power to withdraw from acquisition ceased. On the facts, possession had been taken through official record, witnesses, revenue entries and handing over to the development authority, so the Minister had no authority to direct release of the land. An uncommunicated file noting by the Revenue Minister was only an internal expression of opinion and did not create any enforceable right, as it was neither a communicated nor a legally sanctioned order. The writ petition was therefore liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, after possession of the acquired land was taken, the State could invoke Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to withdraw from the acquisition and whether the Revenue Minister had power to direct release of the land; (ii) whether an uncommunicated file noting/order of the Revenue Minister created any enforceable right in favour of the landowners.

Issue (i): whether, after possession of the acquired land was taken, the State could invoke Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to withdraw from the acquisition and whether the Revenue Minister had power to direct release of the land.

Analysis: Section 48 permits withdrawal only from land of which possession has not been taken. Section 16 provides that once possession is taken after award, the land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. On the facts, the record established taking of actual possession by the acquisition authorities, supported by panchanama, witnesses, revenue entries and handing over to the development authority. Once such possession was taken, the statutory power under Section 48 ceased to be available. The Minister therefore could not invoke Section 48 to order release of the land.

Conclusion: The invocation of Section 48 after possession had been taken was impermissible, and the Revenue Minister had no authority to direct release of the acquired land.

Issue (ii): whether an uncommunicated file noting/order of the Revenue Minister created any enforceable right in favour of the landowners.

Analysis: A mere file noting is only an internal expression of opinion and does not amount to a legally operative governmental order unless it is approved in the manner required by law and communicated to the person concerned. The alleged decision was never communicated and was later directed to be reconsidered. In addition, release of land under the acquisition scheme was held to be complete only upon issuance of a formal notification, not on an internal noting alone.

Conclusion: The uncommunicated noting did not create any enforceable right and could not support a mandamus for release of the land.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's order succeeded because the land had already vested in the State after possession, the Minister lacked power to withdraw the acquisition, and the internal noting did not crystallise into an enforceable order. The writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Power to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 exists only so long as possession has not been taken, and an internal governmental file noting does not become enforceable unless translated into a communicated and legally sanctioned order.

---