Summary
The State validly rescinded a notification withdrawing land from acquisition after earlier final judgments had established that possession was taken and the land vested in the State. Those findings bound the landowners in subsequent proceedings. The residents’ association had standing to appeal, and the High Court orders restoring the withdrawal were set aside.
Issues
- Whether the State could rescind a notification withdrawing land from acquisition.
- Whether earlier findings on possession precluded their reconsideration in later writ proceedings.
- Whether the residents’ association could maintain the appeals.
Provisions considered
- Section 21, General Clauses Act, 1897Power to notify includes power to amend or rescind in like manner unless the governing statute excludes it. (¶ 30–35)
- Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in KarnatakaTaking possession vests the land in the State; the Gazette notification is evidence of possession, though not conclusive by itself. (¶ 37–46)
Held
- Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act excluded Section 21 from a notification under Section 48. The State did not exhaust its power by issuing the withdrawal notification and could rescind it in the prescribed manner. (¶ 30–35)
- Earlier writ judgments between the parties had determined that possession was taken in 1984 and acquisition had become final. Those findings operated as res judicata; the later Single Judge could not discard them and find that possession had not been taken. Withdrawal after vesting was unavailable. (¶¶ 54–61, 67–75)
- The association represented affected allottees and had sufficient standing. Withdrawal of the development authority’s own special-leave petitions did not defeat these appeals. (¶ 27–29)
- The Court expressed no opinion on the allegation of occupation beyond the allotted area; the authority could take lawful steps if excess possession existed. (¶ 76)
Result
All appeals allowed; Division Bench and Single Judge judgments set aside and the landowners’ writ petition dismissed.