Summary
The housing authority challenged restoration of a notification withdrawing land from acquisition. The State had cancelled that notification by relying on a later government order reallocating withdrawal decisions to administrative departments. The Court held that the later order operated prospectively and did not justify undoing the earlier withdrawal. The beneficiary had been afforded an opportunity to respond, and its arguments did not establish grounds for interference. The appeals were dismissed, preserving lawful fresh acquisition.
Issues
- Whether the later allocation of departmental powers justified cancelling the earlier withdrawal notification.
- Whether the beneficiary established a procedural or factual basis to overturn the withdrawal on these facts.
Provisions considered
- Section 48, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Withdrawal required absence of actual possession, a notified decision and fair consideration including an opportunity to the beneficiary. The cancellation here relied on an inapplicable later departmental order. (¶¶ 14-18, 23)
Held
- The statutory liberty to withdraw is subject to fairness, bona fides and judicial review. Actual possession must not have been taken, relevant public-interest considerations must be addressed and the acquisition beneficiary must have an opportunity to respond. Withdrawal must be notified. (¶ 14-17)
- The withdrawal notification recited that the beneficiary had been asked for its report and sent reminders without response. Its subsequent representation did not dispute that opportunity. The authority could not make good that omission through the later contention advanced in these proceedings. (¶¶ 18, 23)
- The document relied upon as an individual Section 9 notice merely informed the owner of the date fixed for the award. The Court did not accept it as proof that the asserted Section 9(3) notice had issued. Non-service of such an individual notice was not itself treated as invalidating every acquisition. (¶ 19-22)
- The 2006 government order reallocating withdrawal decisions took immediate, prospective effect. It did not affect the 2005 withdrawal notification, so reliance on it did not sustain the 2008 cancellation. The Court did not hold that every withdrawal notification was irrevocable: fraud or absence of an indispensable beneficiary hearing could present a different case. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeals dismissed. The High Court orders were left undisturbed. The result did not prevent the housing authority from acquiring the lands in accordance with law. Parties to bear their respective costs.