http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: LT. GOVERNOR OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AVINASH SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/1970

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1576            1971 SCR  (1) 413  1970 SCC  (2) 149  CITATOR INFO :  D          1972 SC1363  (13)  R          1975 SC1767  (4)  RF         1989 SC  49  (26,27)  RF         1991 SC1117  (9,10)

ACT: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Ss. 4, 6, 17 (1) and (4) and  48- Land  vesting  in  Government after  notification  under  S. 17(1)-If  can  revert to original owner by  cancellation  of notification  under S. 21 of the General Clauses Act,  1897- Original  possession of acquired land taken  illegally--  If land vests in Govt. free from encumbrances 15 days after  s. 17(1) notification.

HEADNOTE: Possession of an area of land in Himachal Pradesh  including some land belonging to the respondent was taken in  December 1963 by the Deputy Commissioner and the land was handed over to  the Air Force Authorities.  Subsequently, on  March  31, 1964, a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published., Thereafter by a composite notification under s. 6 and s. 17(1) & (4) dated May 16, 1964, the  State Government  declared that the land was needed for  a  public purpose"  that since it was required urgently,  the  enquiry under  s.  5-A  of  the Act was  dispensed  with,  and  that possession of the land would be taken under s. 17(1) of  the Act after the expiry of 15 days of the notice under s.  9(1) of the Act.  The Collector then served notices under s. 9 in June  1964.   On  October  5,  1965,  the  State  Government published an order cancelling the notifications dated  March 31, 1964 and May 16, 1964, for acquisition of the land.  The respondent  filed  a  writ  petition  and  prayed  that  the notification  dated October 5, 1965, be quashed and  that  a writ  of  mandamus be issued directing  the  authorities  to discharge their duties in law to determine compensation  for compulsory and urgent acquisition.  The petition was allowed by the Judicial Commissioner. In  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf  of  the appellant  that under s. 21 of the General Clauses Act,  the State had the power to cancel the notifications at any  time and  that s. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act did  not  trench

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

upon  that  power;  furthermore, where  the  Government  had obtained   possession  illegally  or  under  some   unlawful transaction  and notification under sec. 17(1)  was  issued, the  land  did  not vest in the Government  ’free  from  all encumbrances; and that the notification issued by the  State Government  under Sec. 17(1) and (4) was  without  authority because it did not recite that the land notified was  "waste or arable". HELD : Dismissing the appeal, When  possession of-the land is taken under s.17(1)  of  the Land  Acquisition  Act  the land vests  in  the  Government. There  is no provision by which land statutorily  vested  in the  Government  reverts  to the  original  ,owner  by  mere cancellation  of the notification under s. 17(1).   Although the  government  may cancel or rescind  notifications  under section  4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act a  notification under  s. 17(1) cannot be cancelled nor can it be  withdrawn in  exercise  of  the  powers under  Sec.  48  of  the  Land Acquisition  Act.   Any other view would  enable  the  State Government  to circumvent the specific provision by  relying upon a general power in the General clauses Act, [415 H, 417 C-E] State  of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma  & Ors [1966] 3 S.C.R. 557, referred to. 414

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 514 of 1967. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated September  27, 1966 of the Judicial Commissioner’s Court  at Simla and Civil Writ Petition No. 30 of 1965. Jagadish Swarup, Solicitcr-General, V. C. Mahajan and R.  N. Sachthey for the appellants. Bishan Narain and O. N. Mahindroo, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu, apparently  acting on the request of the Air Force authorities took  possession on  December  23, 1963, of an area of land in  village  Galu Chak.   That  area included 8-14-0 bighas belonging  to  the respondent.   The  record does not  disclose  the  authority under  which possession of the land was taken and  delivered over to the Air Force.  There was correspondence between the Air  Force Authorities and the State of Himachal Pradesh  in regard to the land occupied by the Air Force and  ultimately on  March  31, 1964, a notification under s. 4 of  the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published notifying that the area of land (including the land of the respondent) was likely to be needed by the State Government for a public purpose.   By a  composite notification under s. 6 & s. 17(1) & (4)  dated May  16, 1964, the State of Himachal Pradesh  declared  that the land was needed for a public purpose, that since it  was required  urgent,  the enquiry under s. 5-A of the  Act  was dispensed  with,  and that possession of the  land  will  be taken  under  S.  17 (1 ) of the Act after  the,  expiry  of fifteen  days  from the publication of the notice  under  s. 9(1)  of  the  Act.  The Collector  of  Mahasu  then  served notices under S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act in June 1964. On  October  5,  1965, the Government  of  Himachal  Pradesh published  an order cancelling the notification dated  March 31,  1964, and May 16, 1964, for acquisition of land  for  a public purpose. The respondent then presented a petition before the Judicial Commissioner,  Himachal  Pradesh, for a  writ  quashing  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

notification   dated  October  5,  1965,   withdrawing   and cancelling  the  previous notifications and for  a  writ  of mandamus  directing the authorities of the State  Government to act according to law and discharge the duties cast by law upon  them in the’ matter of determination  of  compensation for  compulsory  and urgent acquisition.  The  petition  was granted  by the Judicial Commissioner.  In the view  of  the Judicial Commissioner when the notification 41 5 under s. 17(1) & (4) was issued, and possession was taken by the  State Government the land vested in the Government  and it  was not competent to the State Government thereafter  to withdraw the notifications in exercise of the power under s. 48  of the Land Acquisition Act.  Against the order  of  the Judicial  Commissioner, this appeal has been preferred  with special leave. The  Solicitor-General  appearing on behalf  of  the  State- contended  that under s. 21 of the General Clauses  Act  the State has the power to cancel the notifications at any time, and  that s. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act did  not  trench upon   that  power.   Under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act   a notification  under  s. 4 of the Act may be  issued  by  the appropriate Government that any land is needed or is  likely to be needed for a public purpose.  Unless the inquiry under s. 5-A is dispensed with, any person interested in the  land notified  may object to the acquisition of the land,  or  of any  land  in  the locality.  On the  objections  made,  the Collector  holds  an inquiry after giving  the  objector  an opportunity  of  being  heard,  and  makes  a  report.   The appropriate Government may, if satisfied, after  considering the report, if any, of the Collector under s. 5-A(2), make a declaration  that the land is needed for a  public  purpose. The  declaration  is conclusive evidence that  the  land  is needed for a public purpose.  Then follows an inquiry as  to the amount of compensation payable to the owner of the land, and to the other claimants.  If the land is waste or arable, the  Government  may in case of urgency  dispense  with  the inquiry under s. 5-A and direct that possession may be taken on  the expiration of fifteen days after publication of  the notice  under  s. 9(1) of the Act even though  no  award  of compensation  is made by the Collector.  When possession  is taken the land vests exclusively in the Government free from all encumbrances. In  the present case a notification under s. 17(1)  and  (4) was issued by the State Government and possession which  had previously  been  taken  must, from the date  of  expiry  of fifteen  days  from the publication of the notice  under  s. 9(1), be deemed to be the possession of the Government.   We are  unable to agree that where the Government has  obtained possession illegally or under some unlawful transaction  and a  notification under s. 17(1) is issued the land  does  not vest  in the Government free from all encumbrances.  We  are of  the  view  that when a notification under  s.  17(1)  is issued,   on  the  expiration  of  fifteen  days  from   the publication  of  the  notice  mentioned in  s.  9  (1),  the possession  previously  obtained will be deemed  to  be  the possession  of the Government under s. 17(1) of the Act  and the  land will vest in the Government free from  all  encum- branches. 4 1 6 It  is  true that the notification issued by  the  State  of Himachal Pradesh under s. 17( 1) & (4) does not recite  that the  land  notified was "waste or arable".  But it  was  not contended   before  the  Judicial  Commissioner   that   the Government  issued  the notification under s.  17(1)  &  (4)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

without  authority.  Power under sub-ss. (1) & (4) of s.  17 may be only exercised when the land is waste or arable,  and the Government having issued the notification, it is not  be open  to  them to contend for the first time at  this  stage that the land of the respondent was not waste or ,arable and the notifications were unauthorised. Section  48  of the Land Acquisition Act by the  first  sub- section provides :               "  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.  " Power  to cancel a notification for  compulsory  acquisition is,  it  is  true, not affected by S. 48 of the  Act:  by  a notification  under  s. 21 of the General Clauses  Act,  the Government  may cancel ,or rescind the notifications  issued under ss. 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.  But the  power under  s. 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be  exercised after the land statutorily vests in the State Government. In State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad  Sharma & Ors(1)  on  which reliance was placed, the  only  question which fell to  be  considered  by the Court  was  whether  a notification under  s.  4(1) may be followed  by  successive notifications under S. 6 for   small  parts  of   the   land comprised  in one notification issued under s. 4. The  Court rejected  the  contention that the State was  invested  with such  a  power.   In  considering  the  argument  the  Court referred to the power to cancel the notification under S. 21 of  the General Clauses Act, apart from the power  conferred by s. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.  The Court observed               "Section  48(1)  is a  special  provision  for               those cases where proceedings for  acquisition               have  gone  beyond the stage of the  issue  of               notice  under  s. 9 (1) and  it  provides  for               payment  ’of compensation under s. 48(2)  read               with  ‘. 48(3).  We cannot . . . . accept  the               argument  that without an order under  s.48(1)               the  notification under s.4 must  remain  out-               standing.  It can be cancelled at any time  by               Government under s. 21 of the General  Clauses               Act and what               (1)   [1966]3 S.C.R 557.                417                s. 48(1).      If  no notice has been  issued               under possess-ion    it  cannot withdraw  from               the acquisition. Before that   it  may  cancel               the  notification under ss. 4 and 6 or it  may               withdraw from the acquisition under s.  48(1).               If  no notice has been issued under S.  9  (1)               all  that the government has to do is to  pay,               for the damage caused as provided in s. 5;  if               on  the  other hand a notice has  been  issued               under s. 9 (1), damage has also to be paid  in                             accordance  with the provisions of s.  48  (2).               and (3)." But  these  observations  do not assist  the  case  of  the, appellants.,.  It  is clearly implicit in  the  observations that   after  possession  has  been  taken  pursuant  to   a notification  under  s.  17 (1) the land is  vested  in  the Government,  and the notification cannot be cancelled  under s.  21 of the General Clauses Act, nor can the  notification be  withdrawn in exercise of the powers under s. 48  of  the Land.,  Acquisition  Act.  Any other view would  enable  the State  Government  to circumvent the specific  provision  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

relying  upon a general power.  When possession of the  land is taken under s. 17 (1), the land vests in the  Government. There  is no provision by which land statutorily  vested  in the  Government  reverts  to  the  original  owner  by  mere cancellation of the notification. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. R.K.P.S.                                            Appeal dismissed. 418