Summary
A de-acquisition notification issued contrary to the Supreme Court’s binding earlier judgment between the parties was void and conferred no right. Its cancellation required no further hearing on these facts. The High Court’s remand was set aside, substantial costs were imposed, and the heirs remained entitled to withdraw deposited compensation with interest limited to the deposit date.
Issues
- Whether the State could de-acquire the same land after a binding Supreme Court ruling prohibited it.
- Whether cancellation of the void notification required a further hearing.
Provisions considered
- Section 48, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The concluded acquisition could not be reopened through a de-acquisition notification contrary to the binding inter partes ruling. (¶ 5–9)
- Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The heirs could withdraw compensation deposited in court; BDA’s interest liability ceased on deposit. (¶ 12)
Held
- The earlier Supreme Court decision conclusively barred the proposed reconveyance/de-acquisition. The later notification was illegal and void, leaving no right requiring a hearing before its cancellation. (¶ 5–10)
- The High Court should have respected the binding decision rather than prolong the same dispute through remand. (¶ 9–10)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside. Respondent’s heirs directed to deposit Rs 5 lakh costs with the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association within two months. Compensation withdrawal permitted; interest ceased on its court deposit.