Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside the Government's order dated 25.04.2008 cancelling the earlier notification exempting certain lands from acquisition. The case originated from a notification under Section 28 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) issued on 10.11.1973 for acquiring land including Khasra Plot No. 7 and 3 belonging to Ram Ratan, whose son Ram Singh (now deceased) was the respondent. A declaration under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam (equivalent to Section 6) was issued on 17.08.1977, and the urgency clause under Section 17(1) was invoked on 18.07.1979. The appellant claimed possession was taken on 11.12.1981 and 31.3.1983, and an award was passed on 28.09.1985. On 19.11.1985, Ram Singh applied for compensation, acknowledging the acquisition. On 07.07.2005, the Government issued a notification exempting the land from acquisition. The appellant made a representation, leading to the Government's order dated 25.04.2008 cancelling the exemption and directing reconsideration. Ram Singh challenged this order in the High Court, which allowed his writ petition on 31.08.2010. The appellant's subsequent application for recall was rejected on 20.12.2016. The Supreme Court held that once possession has been taken and an award passed, the Government cannot withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent's own conduct in seeking compensation after the award estopped him from denying possession. The High Court's interference was unwarranted as the acquisition was complete. The Court set aside the High Court's orders and restored the Government's order dated 25.04.2008, allowing the appeals.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Withdrawal from Acquisition - Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Possession and Award - Once possession of land has been taken and an award has been passed, the Government loses its power to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant had taken possession on 11.12.1981 and 31.3.1983, and an award was passed on 28.09.1985. The respondent had also applied for compensation on 19.11.1985, acknowledging the acquisition. Held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Government's order dated 25.04.2008 which cancelled the earlier exemption notification, as the acquisition had already culminated in possession and award (Paras 2-6, 10-12). B) Land Acquisition - Government Order - Validity - Mohinder Singh Gill Principle - A government order must be judged on its own terms and cannot be supported by subsequent affidavits or submissions. The order dated 25.04.2008 was based on the order dated 15.09.2006 which had prospective operation, but the High Court's interference was not justified on this ground alone as the acquisition was complete. Held that the principle in Mohinder Singh Gill vs CEC (1978) 1 SCC 405 applies but does not salvage the respondent's case (Paras 7-8, 10). C) Land Acquisition - Public Interest - Housing Scheme - The land was acquired for a housing scheme for Low-Income Group and was integral to the scheme. Public interest demands that after possession and award, the acquisition should not be lightly undone. Held that the appellant's case is attended with highest public interest (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government could validly withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after possession had been taken and an award passed, and whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Government's order cancelling the earlier notification of exemption.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court dated 31.08.2010 and 20.12.2016 are set aside. The Government order dated 25.04.2008 is restored.
Law Points
- Withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 is not permissible after possession has been taken and award passed
- Possession must be actual but can be established through documentary evidence and conduct of parties
- Government order must be judged on its own terms and cannot be supplemented by affidavits
- Public interest in housing schemes outweighs private claims after acquisition is complete
