VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusS.S. NAIDU & ORS.

                          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                                  B
    [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Court - Thereafter, acquisition was withdrawn thrice at the behest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           c
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
                                                                          D
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           E
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-                 F
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           G
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            H
                                 I
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
                                     WITH
          C. A. Nos. 5378-5379 of2016
          Contnt. Pet. (C) No. 233 of2013 in C. A. No. 5377 of2016.
E          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.
F         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.
G          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
H
VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.                                   3
           S. S. NAIDU (ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

also issued. The award was made and ultimately compensation in respect         A
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           B
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, possession was taken and
the amount of compensation was also deposited with the Court, but in
pursuance of the request made by the land-owners, the acquisition
proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the Act was ordered to be
                                                                               c
withdrawn under G.O.M. No.156 dated 25th February, 1982. Thus, by
virtue of the said Government Order, acquisition of the land in question
was withdrawn. Subsequently, Government Order dated 25th February,
1982, whereby the acquisition proceedings was withdrawn, was cancelled
under G.O.M. No.714 dated ] ] th November, 1983.                               D
      5. Effect of the proceedings which had taken place upto now
was that the land was acquired, possession was taken, Award was made
and compensation was deposited with the Court and yet G.O.M. No.156
dated 25th February, 1982 was issued, whereby the acquisition
proceedings was withdrawn, but subsequently withdrawal of the                  E
acquisition proceedings was cancelled and thus the notification dated
20th March, 1978, which was initially issued, remained in force.
        6. At this stage, the owners of the land in question filed Writ
Petition No.11326 ofl 983 praying for quashing ofG.O.M. No.714 dated
I I th November, 1983, whereby withdrawal of the land acquisition              F
proceedings was cancelled. The said Petition was disposed of on 25th
April, 1984 by giving a direction to the authorities to reconsider the issue
with regard to acquisition of the land in question. The said order dated
25th April, 1984 was challenged by filing Writ Appeal No. I 081 of 1984
and the said Writ Appeal was dismissed on 1" February, 1989.
                                                                               G
       7. In pursuance of a representation made as per order dated 25th
April, 1984, vide G.O.M. No.121 of 27th February, 1990, the Government
requested the Collector to return the land in question to the land-owners,
but the said G.O.M. No.121 was cancelled by another G.O.M. No.222
dated 30th April, 1998. The said G.O.M. No.222 gave rise to another
Writ Petition No.14818 of 1998 filed by the land-owners which was              H
4              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016) 4 S.C.R.



A   disposed of on J 3th November, 1998, whereby the Government was
    directed to reconsider the issue. The aforesaid order passed in the Writ
    Petition was challenged by filing Writ Appeal No.2312of1998, but the
    said Writ Appeal was dismissed on 27th February, 2002. The Respondents
    also filed Writ Appeal No. I 074of1999 for return of the land in question,
    which was allowed by the High Court and the authorities were directed
B
    to deliver possession of the land in question to the land-owners. Being
    aggrieved, the appellants herein approached this Court. This Court vide
    order dated 22"d February, 2006 disposed of Civil Appeal Nos.1665 and
    1666 of 2004 by directing the State Government to reconsider the
    representation made by the land-owners.
c           8. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, by an order
    dated [8th May, 2009, by virtue ofG.O.M. No.314, the State Government
    decided to withdraw the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in
    question but, once again, on ] 8th August, 2009, by virtue ofGO.M. No.515,
    the Government authorities cancelled the decision with regard to
D   withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings. Again, Writ Petition No.17249
    of2009 was filed challenging the said decision dated J 8th August, 2009.
    The said Writ Petition was allowed on 7t1t February, 2011. Against the
    said decision rendered in the said Writ Petition, Writ Appeal No.475 of
    20 I I and Writ Appeal No.1455 of 2011 were filed QY Visakhapatnam
    Urban Development Authority and the State of Andhra Pradesh
E   respectively. Both the Appeals were dismissed by a common judgment
    dated 24th January, 20 l 2 and the said judgment has been challenged by
    the aforestated both parties.
           9. Upon perusal of the aforestated undisputed facts, it is very
    clear that though possession of the land in question was taken on 20th
F   February, 1982, the Government wanted the acquisition to be cancelled
    and, in our opinion, it could not have been done in view of the provisions
    ofSection 48 of the Act. Relevant portion ofSection 48 of the Act is
    reproduced hereinbelow :-
           "48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but
G          compensation to be awarded when not completed. -
           ( l) Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government
           shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of
           which possession has not been taken."
           I 0. Every time, when the authorities decided to withdraw the
H
 V!SAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.                                     5
            S. S. NAIDU [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

 acquisition proceedings, power given under Section 48 of the Act was             A
 exercised. In our opinion, after taking possession of the land in question
 from the land-owners, power under Section 48 of the Act could not have
 been exercised.
        11. Though this is the third round of the litigation, it is an admitted
 fact that an effort to withdraw the land in question from the acquisition        B
 proceedings was initiated only after possession of the land in question
 was taken from the land-owners and Section 48( 1) of the Act does not
 permit withdrawal of acquisition proceedings of any land after possession
 of the land is taken.
        12. Possibly, the Com1 was having some sympathy for the land-             c
 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.
                                                                                  D
          13. Be that as it may, the Courts were quite sympathetic towards
  the land-owners and therefore, every time the land-owners were asked
  to make a representation to the Government and therefore, these three
. rounds oflitigation have taken place, which, in our opinion, is not fair or
  justifiable. In our opinion, it was also not just and proper for the Court to
  show undue sympathy towards the land-owners by asking them to make              E
  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 drawn litigation which has not helped them at all.
         14. The fact remains that the land in question is required for a         F
 public purpose i.e. for widening of a road. There is no need to say that
 under the Act, the State has power to acquire land for a public purpose
 and widening ofa public road is definitely a public purpose for which the
 land can be acquired.
       15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned                 G
 counsel appearing for both the sides. In view of the aforestated facts,
 we are of the view that the acquisition proceedings could not have been
 quashed by the High Court, especially when the Government had not
 acted in accordance with law while withdrawing the land in question
 from the acquisition proceedings.
                                                                                  H
6              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A         16. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the impugned
    judgment dated 241h January, 2012 delivered by the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.475 and 1455 of2011. The Appeals are
    allowed with no order as to costs.
          17. In view of the fact that Civil A.ppeal No. 5377 of2016 (@
B   SLP (C) No.19642of2012) has bce11 allowed, the contempt proceedings
    would not survive and are, acc0. Jingly, disposed of.
    Kalpana K. Tripathy   Appeals allowed and Contempt pro.ccedings disposed of.