AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.A. Mehta, Acting C.J.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer refusing to make reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The reference is sought on the ground that u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government has withdrawn from the acquisition and the petitioner had suffered damage on account of the acquisition and is entitled to be compensated for the same u/s 48(2) and, therefore, reference ought to have been made u/s 48(3) of the Act.
The Land Acquisition Officer has held that there was no withdrawal from acquisition u/s 48(1) and, therefore, there is no question of awarding any compensation u/s 48(2) or making any reference u/s 48(3).
It is not in dispute that there was only a declaration of intention to acquire the land by notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter there is no notification u/s 6 of the Act. Therefore, there is no acquisition and hence there is no question of withdrawal from the acquisition. Therefore, Section 48 has no application to the facts of this case.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of land was taken in the year 1969. That also does not seem to be under any acquisition of land. The fact of possession having been taken is also in dispute. In any case, such transfer of possession would not make it an acquisition and consequent withdrawal of acquisition u/s 48 and, therefore, Section 48 is not applicable and there is no question of determination of any compensation u/s 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer or making reference to the District Court u/s 48(3) read with Section 18 of the Act.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Ramaji Baliramji Sawarkar Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (General), Nagpur and Others, . It was a case of acquisition where both the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 had been issued. Similarly, in the case of Krishnakunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (X), Mehsana and Others, , there were notifications under Sections. 4 and 6. Both these judgments have, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case where there is no notification u/s 4.
Hence this petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.