RAJINDER SINGH BHATTI AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 964 
A 
RAJINDER SINGH BHATTI AND ORS. 
.. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos .. 4117-4118 of 2001 etc.) 
B 
MARCH 3, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
r 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
c 
ss. 11A, 48 (1) and (2) - Withdraw/ of acquisition 
proceedings - Lapse of acquisition proceedings - Due to 
failure to pass award within two years from publication of 
declaration, on account of non-approval of proposed award 
by Government - Held: The lapse of acquisition proceedings 
uls. 11A would not tantamount to withdrawal of acquisition 
• 
D proceedings Therefore, claim for compensation u/s. 48 (2) not 
maintainable. 
s. 48 (1) - Decision of withdrawal of acquisition -
Publication of, in official gazette - Held: Such decision is 
E required to be published in official gazette. 
The questions for consideration in the present 
appeals were (1) whether in view of the decision of the 
Government in not approving the award proposed by the 
F eouector, the award could not be made within the period 
of two years from the date of publication of declaration 
(final notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act) 
and the acquisition of land lapsed, would such lapse of 
acquisition proceedings amount to withdrawal from the 
G 
a~quisition by the State Government under Section 48(1) 
of the Act ? and (2) Whether the decision of the State 
G.overnment for withdrawal from the acquisition u/s. 48(1) 
is mandatorily required to be published in the official 
gazette? 
... 
H 
964 
./ 
' 
RAJINDER SINGH BHATII AND ORS. v. STATE OF 
965 
HARYANA AND ORS. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The statutory lapse of acquisition 
proceedings u/s. 11A of Land Acquisitio~ Act, 1894 as a 
result of non-grant of approval of proposed award by the 
State Government or for any other reason would not 8 
tantamount to withdrawal from acquisition by the State 
Government as contemplated u/s. 48(1 ). As a necessary 
corollary, no claim for compensation could be made 
under Section 48(2) of the Act. Section 11A and the 
consequence provided therein i.e., lapse of acquisition C 
proceedings in the event of the award having not been 
made within a period of two years from the date of 
publication of the declaration u/s. 6 is entirely distinct and 
different than the decision that the Government may take 
for withdrawal from the acquisition u/s. 48(1), provided 
possession has not been taken. It is only in a case where D 
the Government withdraws from the acquisition u/s. 48(1 ), 
that by virtue of Section 48(2), the claim for 
compensation for the damage suffered by the owner in 
consequence of the acquisition proceedings together 
with costs could be made. (Para 23) (976-D-G] 
E 
1.2 In the context of Section 48, the word "withdraw" 
is indicative of the voluntary and conscious decision of 
the Government for withdrawal from the acquisition; 
statutory lapse u/s. 11-A is entirely different. The object F 
of Section 11-A is to arrest delay in making award. An 
obligation is cast on the Collector u/s. 11 •A to make the 
award within the time prescribed therein failing which 
statutory consequence follows namely, acquisition 
proceedings lapse automatically. [Para 24) (976-H; 977-
G 
A-BJ 
Abdul Majeed Sahib and Anr. vs. District Collector and 
Ors. 1997 (1) sec 297, relied on. 
2. Decision of the Government for withdrawal from H 
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 
A acquisition has to be published in the official gazette. The 
' 
Act provides for the publication of notification and 
declaration u/s. 4 and 6 of the Act in official gazette. 
Obviously the withdrawal from land acquisition 
proceedings by taking resort to Section 48(1) of the Act 
B also must be in the like manner. [Para 27) [978-B-E] 
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1998 
(4) sec 387, relied on. 
Abdul Majeed Sahib and Anr. vs. District Collector and 
C Ors. 1997 (1) SCC 297, referred to. 
3. In the instant case, there is no decision by the 
Government for withdrawal from the acquisition. Even if 
it is assumed that such decision was taken on the file, 
0 
since such decision has not been published in the official 
, 
gazette, there is no withdrawal from the acquisition by the 
State Government within the meaning of Section 48(1) of 
the Act. The application u/s. 48(2) of the Act was, 
therefore, rightly held to be not maintainable. [Para 29) 
E [980-C-D] 
F 
Case Law Reference: 
1997 (1) sec 291 
1998 (4) sec 387

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