TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the respondents could withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the land had already been retained in possession after the award was passed. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to release of the compensation awarded under the common award dated 30 May 1995 with interest.
Issue (i): Whether the respondents could withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the land had already been retained in possession after the award was passed.
Analysis: The land had been the subject of a common acquisition process and common award. The earlier Division Bench decision concerning the adjoining plot had already held, on materially identical facts, that after the award and continued possession, the land stood vested and withdrawal under Section 48 was not available. The Court held that the present case was indistinguishable in substance and that the respondents could not take a different stand merely because a later withdrawal order had been passed in this matter. The attempt to invoke Section 48 was therefore inconsistent with the settled position on possession and vesting.
Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to release of the compensation awarded under the common award dated 30 May 1995 with interest.
Analysis: Once the withdrawal order was found unsustainable, the petitioners' claim to the awarded amount necessarily survived. The Court also emphasized that the respondents had already paid compensation in the adjoining identical matter and that equal treatment was required on principles of fairness and non-discrimination. Since the award had attained finality and the petitioners had been denied the benefit of payment for an extended period, the respondents were bound to disburse the amount along with statutory interest.
Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to payment of the awarded compensation with interest.
Final Conclusion: The withdrawal from acquisition was quashed and the respondents were directed to pay the awarded compensation with interest to the petitioners within the time granted by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where land has remained with the acquiring authority after the award and the acquisition issue has been conclusively settled on identical facts, withdrawal under Section 48 is impermissible and equal treatment requires payment of the awarded compensation to similarly situated landholders.
TaxTMI 
