TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 2041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the factual background of the case in detail. The facts mentioned hereinbelow are taken from the SLP paper books and its List of Dates. 4. Survey No. (Gat. No. 210-measuring around 39 H 26 R and Survey No. 211 measuring around 1 H 23 R-Total land 40 H 49 R) situated at Mauje Wakad, Tehsil Mulshi, District Pune (Maharashtra) was originally owned by the members of one "Deo" family. 5. On 12.03.1970, the State Government acquired this land by issuing a notification Under Section 4 of the Act. It was followed by publication of declaration Under Section 6 of the Act. The acquisition was for a public purpose, namely, "planned development and utilization of lands in Pimpri Chinchwad Township Area for industrial, commercial and residential purposes". The development project for which the land was acquired was to be executed through Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority (for short, called "PCNTDA")-Appellant herein. 6. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, called "SLAO") then initiated the proceedings Under Section 11 of the Act for determination of the compensation pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PCNTDA 210 39 H 26 R 28 H 93 R 10 H 33 R 211 1 H 23 R 1 H 5 R 0 H 18 R Total 40 H 49 R 29 H 98 R 10 H 51 R 11. Respondent No. 1 (VCHS) claiming to be the owner of the land in question felt aggrieved and filed writ petition (1116/1993) questioning therein the legality of the order of the State dated 07.07.1992 to the extent it declined to release the remaining land measuring 10 H 51 R. The High Court, by order dated 23.03.1993, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the State. Respondent No. 1 (VCHS) carried the matter in this Court by filing SLP (C) No. 10056/1993. By order dated 26.11.1993, this Court dismissed the SLP. The Divisional Commissioner then passed a final order dated 20.08.1994 Under Section 48 (1) of the Act directing therein for deletion of 29 H 98 R from Survey No. 210 and retaining of 10 H 33 R as acquired land for completion of development project. This is how, out of total acquired land, the land measuring 29 H 98 R was released in favour of landowners from the acquisition proceedings and the land measuring 10 H 33 R was retained to enable the State to execute the development project on the said land through the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the then Revenue Minister but since the Government did not yield to the VCHS insistence, a writ petition (5783/2006) was filed by VCHS on 21.06.2006 in the High Court praying for issuance of mandamus directing the State Government to give effect to the order dated 10.06.2004 passed by the then Revenue Minister and issue appropriate notification in that behalf by releasing the remaining land measuring 10 H 55 R. 16. In this writ petition, the VCHS arrayed only the State Government as party Respondent but did not implead PCNTDA (Appellant herein). The PCNTDA then filed an application for intervention in the said writ petition which was allowed by directing the VCHS to implead PCNTDA as party Respondent in the writ petition. 17. The State and PCNTDA contested the writ petition inter alia on the ground that firstly, the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the entire issue in relation to the land in question has already attained finality thrice in favour of the State, therefore, nothing now remains for further adjudication; Secondly, since possession of the land in question has already been taken over by the State long back on 30.05.2000, the provisions of Section 48 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned Counsel contended that when the State had admittedly taken possession of the land in question long back on 30.05.2000 strictly in accordance with law as laid down by this Court in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat and Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 700, the provisions of Section 48 of the Act had no application to the facts of the case at hand and neither the then Revenue Minister nor the State had any power to invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Act to release any part of the land on or after 30.05.2000. 26. In the fourth place, learned Counsel contended that the then Revenue Minister, who passed the order dated 10.06.2004 had no power to entertain any such application because admittedly during the relevant time, due to announcement of date of the State Assembly elections (September 2004), the Code of Conduct had come in force which did not permit any Minister to exercise such power. 27. In the fifth place, learned Counsel contended that even otherwise, the so called noting made by the then Revenue Minister in the file on 10.06.2004 directing release of the land in question from the acquisition proceedings could never be construed as an "order" within the meaning of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order including its reasoning. It was her submission that the impugned order is based on proper reasoning and hence it does not call for any interference. Learned Counsel elaborated her submission by referring to the documents to support the reasoning of the High Court. 35. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the submissions of the learned senior Counsel for the Appellant. 36. The main questions which arise for consideration in this appeal are first, whether the then Revenue Minister, who was purporting to act for and on behalf of the State, had the power, in the background facts of this case, to invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Act for release of the acquired land in question from the acquisition proceedings; Second, whether the State had taken possession of the acquired land in question on 30.05.2000 and, if so, its effect; and lastly, what is the true nature of the order dated 10.06.2004. 37. Sections 16 and 48, which are relevant for this case read as under: Section 16 16. Power to take possession-When the Collector has made an award Under Section 11, he may take posse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it must take actual possession of the land, since all interests in the land are sought to be acquired by it. There can be no question of taking "symbolical" possession in the sense understood by judicial decisions under the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. What the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of the land in the Government is the taking of actual possession of the land. How such possession may be taken would depend on the nature of the land. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can be no hard and fast Rule laying down what act would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land. We should not, therefore, be taken as laying down an absolute and inviolable Rule that merely going on the spot and making a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land in every case. But here, in our opinion, since the land was lying fallow and there was no crop on it at the material time, the act of the Tehsildar in going on the spot and inspecting the land for the purpose of determining what....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we hold that the possession of the land in question was taken by the State in accordance with law on 30.05.2004 from the landowners, we have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Section 48 of the Act were not applicable to the case at hand. In other words, once it is held that the possession of the acquired land was with the State, the land stood vested in the State disentitling the State to release the land from the acquisition proceedings by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. 46. A fortiori, the then Revenue Minister had no power to deal with the land in question in any manner whatsoever and nor had any power to invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Act for release of the land in question from the clutches of the acquisition proceedings. 47. This takes us to examine another question though in the light of our finding on the issue of possession, it is not necessary for us to examine this question in detail. 48. The question is whether the order dated 10.06.2004 passed by the then Revenue Minister directing release of the acquired land in question has the attributes of an order within the meaning of Section 48 of the Act or, in othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not give any indication of the manner or mode in which the power/discretion to withdraw from the acquisition of any land is required to be exercised, having regard to the scheme of Parts II and VII of the 1894 Act, which postulates publication of notification Under Section 4(1), declaration Under Section 6 and agreement Under Section 42 in the Official Gazette as a condition for valid acquisition of the land for any public purpose or for a company, it is reasonable to take the view that withdrawal from the acquisition, which may adversely affect the public purpose for which, or the company on whose behalf the acquisition is proposed, can be done only by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette. 39. The requirement of issuing a notification for exercise of power Under Section 48(1) of the Act to withdraw from the acquisition of the land can also be inferred from the judgments of this Court in Municipal Committee, Bhatinda v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 24, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1995) Supp 3 SCC 538, State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Umashankar Rajabhau and Ors. (1996) 1 SCC 299 and State of T.N. and....