2009 (6) TMI 1026 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Release of amount payable to petitioners as per the Award dated 30th May, 1995.
2. Validity of withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Applicability of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding possession.
4. Discrimination in treatment between plot holders of Plot Nos. 50, 51 and 53A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Release of Amount Payable to Petitioners as per the Award Dated 30th May, 1995:
The petitioners sought the release of the amount payable to them under the Award dated 30th May, 1995, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Award was a joint award for Plot Nos. 50, 51, and 53A. The petitioners argued that they were not given any benefit under the Award, while the owner of Plot No. 53A received compensation. The respondents continued to retain possession of the plots without making any payment to the petitioners. The Court directed the respondents to release the amount payable to the petitioners as per the Award, along with interest.

2. Validity of Withdrawal from Acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The respondents issued an order under Section 48(2) of the Act in September 1998, stating that the land in question was in possession of the department as a tenant and not under the Act. The petitioners argued that since the possession was already with the Defence Department, Section 48 could not be invoked. The Court referred to an earlier Division Bench judgment which held that once possession is taken, the land vests with the Government, and withdrawal under Section 48 is not permissible. The Court quashed the order under Section 48 and directed the respondents to make the payment as per the Award.

3. Applicability of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Regarding Possession:
The respondents argued that the possession was not taken as per Section 16 of the Act, which requires actual possession for the land to vest with the Government. The Court noted that the Defence Department was in possession of the land as a tenant before the acquisition and continued to retain possession after the Award. The Court held that the possession was sufficient to vest the land with the Government, and the respondents could not withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48.

4. Discrimination in Treatment Between Plot Holders of Plot Nos. 50, 51 and 53A:
The petitioners argued that they were discriminated against as the owner of Plot No. 53A received compensation while they did not, despite the Award being common for all plots. The Court agreed with the petitioners, stating that the respondents could not give different treatments to citizens whose cases are identical. The Court emphasized that the respondents should have acted reasonably and without discrimination, giving similar treatment to the petitioners as was given to the owner of Plot No. 53A.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the order under Section 48(1) of the Act, and directed the respondents to make the necessary payment to the petitioners as per the Award dated 30th May, 1995, within three months, along with interest as contemplated under the Act. The Court also stayed the order for two months upon the request of the respondents' counsel.