VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus S.S. NAIDU & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Directions issued

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

Judgment (excerpt)

r2o 16] 4 S.C.R. I 
VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
A 
v. 
S.S. NAIDU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5377 of20!6) 
JUNE 29, 2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.48{1) - Land acquired -
Possession taken - Compensation amozmt also deposited with the 
Court - Thereafter, acquisition was withdrawn thrice at the behest 
of the land-owner on the direction of the court - But each time 
withdrawal of acquisition was cancelled - By impugned order High 
Court quashed the acquisition proceedings - On appeal, held: 
s.48(1) does not permit withdrawal of acquisition proceedings of 
any land after possession of the land is taken - Therefore, acquisition 
proceedings could not have been quashed by High Court, as the 
Government had not acted in accordance with law while withdrawing 
the land from acquisition proceedings. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. An effort to withdraw the land in question from 
the acquisition proceedings was initiated only after possession 
of the land in question was taken from the land-owners and Section 
48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not permit 
withdrawal of acquisition proceedings of any land after possession 
of the land is taken. [Para 11) [S-B) 
2. The Court was having some sympathy for the land-
owners and therefore, some recommendations were made by 
the Court with ·regard to making representation to the 
Government authorities about withdrawal of the acquisition 
proceedings in respect of the land in question, but every time 
withdrawal of the land from the acquisition proceedings were 
followed by cancellation of the withdrawal. It was not just and 
proper for the Court to show undue sympathy towards the land-
owners by asking them to make a representation when it was 
against the legal provisions to withdraw the land from the 
acquisition in view of the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. 
Such undue sympathy has relegated the land-owners to this long 
I 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 
A 
drawn litigation which has not helped them at all. [Paras 12 and 
13] [5-C-.Q, E-Fl 
3. The land in question is required for a public purpose 
i.e. for widening of a road. The State has power to acquire land 
for a public purpose and widening of a public road is definitely 
B 
a public purpose for which the land can be acquired. [Para 14] [5~ 
F-G] 
4. In view of the aforestated facts of the case, the acquisition 
proceedings could not have been quashed by the High Court, 
especially when the Government had not acted in accordance 
c 
with law while withdrawing the land in question from the 
acquisition proceedings. [Para 15] [5-G-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5377 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2012 of the High Court 
D 
of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W. A. No. 475 of201 I 
E 
F 
G 
H 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 5378-5379 of2016 
Contnt. Pet. (C) No. 233 of2013 in C. A. No. 5377 of2016. 
Mukul Rohatgi, A.G., Dushyant A. Dave, Adinarayana Rao, Sr. 
Advs., S. S. Reddy, Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, Guntur Prabhakar, S. Udaya 
Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Praseena E. Joseph, M/s. 
Lawyer S. Knit & Co., C. S. N. Mohan Rao, Advs. for the appearing 
parties. 
The Judgment of the Com1 was delivered by 
ANIL R. DAVE, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals 
have been finally heard today. 
3. Chequered history of these appeals started. with issuance of 
notification under Section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 20'h March, 1978. 
The 
res.pondents are the land-owners of the land forming part of TS No.83/ 
I of Waltair Ward of Visakhapatnam, which is the subject matter of 
these appeals. Necessary notification under Section 6 of the Act was 
VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 
S. S. NAIDU (ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
also issued. The award was made and ultimately compensation in respect 
of the land in question was also determined at Rs.7,82,612.56. The said 
amount was deposited in the Court. The land in question was required 
for the purpose of widening of a road. 
4. After the Award was made, the respondents/land-owners of 
the land in question made a request to the authorities concerned for 
withdrawal of the acquisition, though possession of the land in question 
was, in fact, taken on 20th February, 1982. The matter ought to have 
ended there because the land was acquired, p

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