Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a mandamus requiring release of acquired township land on the basis of a Revenue Minister’s file noting. Lawful possession had already vested the land absolutely in the State, excluding withdrawal under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The uncommunicated noting conferred no enforceable right; repeated litigation over release also abused the judicial process.
Issues
- Whether acquired land could be released under Section 48 after possession had vested it in the State.
- Whether the Revenue Minister’s uncommunicated file noting entitled the society to mandamus for release.
Provisions considered
- Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Lawful possession following the award vested the land absolutely in the State, free of encumbrances. The possession records and associated acts satisfied the applicable factual test. (¶¶ 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- Section 48(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894Withdrawal was unavailable after possession. Release also required a notification; an uncommunicated internal noting did not complete withdrawal or create an enforceable right. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54)
Held
- Actual possession must be taken in the manner the nature of the land admits; no universal act suffices in every case. Here notice, attendance of co-owners, witnesses, a signed panchanama, revenue entries and transfer to the development authority established lawful possession. Section 48 could no longer be invoked. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
- Internal file deliberations, until approved and communicated in the prescribed manner, create no enforceable right and remain capable of alteration or withdrawal. Release from acquisition is complete only through the requisite State notification. The Minister’s noting could not support mandamus. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
- Earlier unsuccessful litigation bound the parties and barred renewed agitation of the same release issue. The earlier partial release and retention for the project also disentitled the landowners to seek further release on these facts. (¶¶ 55, 56)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court order set aside and society’s writ petition dismissed, with Rs.25,000 costs payable to the development authority.