PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus VISHNUDEV COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 03-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP
   DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
VISHNUDEV COOPERATIVE HOUSING
   SOCIETY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7649 of 2018)
AUGUST 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.48 – Release of  acquired
land – Land acquired by the State Government for public purpose
– Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) initiated proceeding
u/s.11 and passed an award – Writ petition and SLP filed by the
original landowners against the award were dismissed – Original
landowners filed application u/s.48(1) of the Act to Revenue
Minister of the State to release the land from acquisition –
Application was allowed and land was partly released from
acquisition –  Thereafter, original landowners transferred the land
to respondent no.1 – Writ petition filed by the respondent no.1
challenging the order of the Revenue Minister to the extent it
declined to release the remaining land – Writ petition and SLP filed
by respondent no.1 were again dismissed – SLAO took possession
of the land –  Thereafter, respondent no.1 again filed application
u/s.48(1) of the Act to Revenue Minister of the State to release the
remaining portion of land from acquisition – Revenue Minister
allowed the application, deleting land in question from acquisition
proceedings – Propriety of – Held: Not proper – Once the
possession of the acquired land is taken, the State has no power to
withdraw from the acquisition because as a result of taking over of
the possession, the acquired land vests with the State absolutely
free from all   encumbrances – In instant case, the possession of the
remaining acquired land was taken by the SLAO – When the
possession of the land in question was taken over by the State, the
provisions of s.48 of the Act were not applicable – A fortiori, the
then Revenue Minister had no power to deal with the land in
question in any manner whatsoever and nor had any power to
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 310
  310
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
invoke the  provisions of s.48 of the Act for release of the land from
the clutches of the acquisition proceedings.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.48 – Land acquired by the
State Government for public purpose – After many rounds of
litigations, the State partly released the land from acquisition –
Original landowners transferred the land to respondent no.1 –
Respondent no.1 filed application u/s.48(1) of the Act to Revenue
Minister of the State to release remaining portion of land from
acquisition – Revenue Minister allowed the application, deleting
land in question from acquisition proceedings – Whether the order
passed by the Revenue Minister created any right in favour of the
landowners so as to enable them to claim mandamus for
enforcement of such order against the State – Held: No – A mere
noting in the official files of the Government while dealing with any
matter pertaining to any person is essentially an internal matter of
the Government and carries with it no legal sanctity – So long as
the decision based on such internal deliberation is not proved and
communicated by the competent authority as per the procedure
prescribed in that behalf to the person concerned, such noting does
not create any right in favour of the person concerned nor it
partake the nature of any legal order so as to enable the person
concerned to claim any benefit of any such internal deliberation –
Such noting(s) or/and deliberations(s) are always capable of being
changed or/and amended or/and withdrawn by the competent
authority.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 gives
liberty to the State to withdraw from the acquisition of any land
“of which possession has not been taken” except in the cases
which fall in Section 36. In other words, once the possession of
the acquired land is taken, the State has no power to withdraw
from the acquisition because as a result of taking over of the
possession, the acquired land vests with the State absolutely free
from all encumbrances.  A  fortiori so long as the possession is
not taken of the acquired land, the State is at liberty to withdraw
from the acquisition either partly or fully depending upon the
facts of each case. [Paras 38, 39] [322-F-G]
PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP  DEV. AUTHORITY v.
VISHNUDEV COOP.  HOUSING  SOCIETY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
2. The State did take possession of the acquired land in
question as pe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.