9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the cancellation of notifications for land acquisition by the State Government. 2. Interpretation of Section 17(1) & (4) of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Authority of the State Government to cancel notifications under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Effect of possession taken by the Government on land ownership. Analysis: 1. The case involved the Deputy Commissioner taking possession of land for the Air Force, leading to subsequent notifications for land acquisition by the State Government. The respondent challenged the cancellation of these notifications, arguing that once possession was taken, the land vested in the Government. The Judicial Commissioner granted the petition, stating that the Government could not withdraw notifications after taking possession. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that possession under Section 17(1) meant the land vested in the Government, preventing withdrawal of notifications. 2. The State contended that it had the power to cancel notifications under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, not limited by Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court clarified the process of land acquisition under the Act, highlighting that possession under Section 17(1) transferred ownership to the Government. The Court rejected the argument that the State could cancel notifications post-possession, as it would circumvent the Act's specific provisions. The land vested in the Government upon possession, preventing reversion to the original owner through notification cancellation. 3. The Court referenced a previous case to emphasize that once possession was taken under Section 17(1), the land belonged to the Government, barring cancellation of notifications under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act or withdrawal under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. This ruling aimed to prevent the State Government from using general powers to override specific statutory provisions. The judgment clarified that possession transferred ownership, precluding the State from reverting land to the original owner through notification cancellation. 4. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Judicial Commissioner's decision and highlighting that possession under Section 17(1) resulted in the land vesting in the Government. The ruling underscored that the State Government could not cancel notifications or withdraw acquisition post-possession, ensuring the integrity of the land acquisition process and preventing circumvention of statutory provisions.
|
