REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4117- 4118 OF 2001

Rajinder Singh Bhatti and Ors.      ... Appellants Versus

State of Haryana and Ors.     ..Respondents

WITH

C. A. Nos.7019-7020/2001

Ram Kumar and Ors.     ...   Appellants Versus

State of Haryana and Ors.                      … Respondents

C. A. Nos.7023-7024/2001

Sanjeev Gupta and Anr.    …    Appellants Versus

State of Haryana and Ors.                      ... Respondents

C.A.Nos.7321-7322/2001

Suraj Bhan and Ors.   …     Appellants Versus

State of Haryana and Ors.                      …Respondents

C.A.Nos. 7323-7324/2001

Rajinder Singh and Ors.    …    Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana and Ors.             … Respondents

2

C.A. Nos.  1380-1381 /2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c)Nos.18030-18031/2001

Daleep Chand and Ors.   …    Appellants Versus

State of Haryana and Ors.   …Respondents

C.A.Nos. 1382-1383 /2009         (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) Nos.18231-18232/2001)

 Tikka Sahib Singh and Anr.  ...      Appellants

Versus State of Haryana and Ors.            … Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted  in SLP © Nos.18030-18031/01 and SLP

© Nos.18231-18232/2001.  

2. This  judgment  will  dispose  of  a  group  of  fourteen  civil

appeals by special leave.  Since common questions of law have been

involved in all these appeals, it is appropriate to deal with and decide

them by a common judgment.

3. We  will  confine  ourselves  only  to  the  facts  of  Civil

Appeals 4117-4118/2001 for the facts of this appeal are similar to the

facts of the other appeals comprised in this group.  

3

4. Rajinder Singh (1st appellant)  is the owner of   the land

comprising in Khewat No. 609/793 Khasra No.125/21/3(0-9), 127/1/2

(2-4), 2(8-0), 3(8-18), 8(5-0), 9/1(6-12), 125/2(8-0), 23(8-0), 24(4-10)

total  admeasuring  51  kanals 3 marlas.   Arkinder Pal Singh (2nd

appellant) owns the land  in Khewat  No. 610/794 Khasra No.125/2/3

(1-5),  3/2(2-9),  7/2(2-0),  8(8-0),  9/1(1-0),13(8-0),  14(8-0),  15(4-10),

17(8-8), 18(8-0) total admeasuring 51 kanals 12 marlas.  They also

jointly  own  land  comprising  in   Khewat  No.611/795  Khasra

No.124/14/2(5-16),  15/2(5-11),  30/2(0-8),  31(0-8),  125/9/2(6-4),

11/1/2/(1-7), 19(8-0), 20(7-19), 21/1(4-4), 124/16/1(3-10), 16/4(1-16),

125/1/2(4-8),  12(8-0)  total  admeasuring  57 kanals  6  marlas.   The

total land owned by the appellants is  160 kanals  16 marlas situate

in Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.   

5. The  government  of  Haryana  through  Urban  Estate

Department,  at  the  instance  of  Haryana  Urban  Development

Authority  (‘HUDA’)  sought  to  acquire  the  land  (  326.43  acres)  in

Sector 20, Jagadhri, for the public purpose namely; the development

and  utilization  of  land  for  residential,  institutional,  commercial,

communication, transport  and wholesale market etc.  A preliminary

notification under Section 4 of  the Land Acquisition  Act,  1894 (for

short ‘the Act’) was issued in this regard that was published in the

4

official  gazette on March 7, 1996.  The aforementioned land of the

appellants  was  included  therein.   The  appellants  filed  objections

under Section 5-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector.

The objections made by the appellants were not accepted and the

declaration (final notification) under Section 6 of the Act was issued

and published in the official  gazette on March 6, 1997.  The Land

Acquisition Collector then issued notices under Section 9 of the Act

calling upon the landowners to make their claim of compensation for

all interests in the said land   that they may have.   The appellants

filed their claim before the Land Acquisition Collector.  The appellants

were  then  informed  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  to  remain

present in his office on March 3, 1999 at 11.30 A.M.   According to

the   appellants,  they  remained  present  in  the  office  of  the  Land

Acquisition Collector on March 3, 1999 whole day but no award came

to be announced.  Since the award was not announced by the Land

Acquisition Collector within two years of the publication of declaration

made under Section 6, by virtue of Section 11-A of the Act, the entire

proceedings for the acquisition of the land lapsed.

6.  The  appellants  treated  the  lapse  of  the  acquisition

proceedings as  withdrawal from the acquisition by the Government

and,  consequently,  they  filed  their  claim  of  compensation  for  the

5

damage suffered by them under Section 48(2) of the Act before the

Land  Acquisition  Collector,  Urban  Estate,  Panchkula.   The

compensation  was  demanded  on  diverse  grounds,  inter  alia,  that

their various units and establishments got affected by the proposed

acquisition; that because of proposed acquisition they lost interest in

the  land  and  entered  into  an  agreement  to  purchase  the  land

elsewhere  for  establishing their industrial  units,  poultry farm etc.,

that money was invested  for the purchase of  that land but because

of  withdrawal  from  acquisition,  the  purchase  agreements  were

cancelled and the vendors forfeited the earnest  money.  Since the

merits  of  the  claim  have  not  been  examined  either  by  the  Land

Acquisition Collector or High Court, it is not necessary to give further

details of compensation claimed by the appellants.

7. The Land Acquisition Collector  vide his communication

dated  September 27, 1999 informed the appellants that their claim

under Section 48(2) of the Act was not maintainable in view of the

judgment of this Court in the case of  Abdul Majeed Sahib And Anr.

vs. District Collector And Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 297.

8.      The appellants challenged the order/communication of the

Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula by approaching High Court of

Punjab and Haryana.  The Single Judge of that Court dismissed the

6

entire  group  of  revision  applications  on  November  7,  2000  and

upheld  the  view of  the  Land Acquisition  Collector,  Panchkula  that

claim  of  compensation  under  Section  48  (2)  of  the  Act  was  not

maintainable.

9. The  appellants  sought  review  of  the  order  dated

November  7,  2000.   The  review  applications  also  came  to  be

dismissed by the High Court.  It is from these orders that the matters

have reached this Court.

10. At this stage we may notice that vide Order dated May 1,

2008, this Court directed the State of Haryana and HUDA to file an

affidavit  indicating  their  stand  with  regard  to   the  provisions  of

Sections  11-A,  48 & 48-A of   the Act.    In response thereto,  an

affidavit has been filed on behalf of these authorities.  The stand of

these authorities is that the provisions of Section 11-A and 48 of the

Act are distinct and different.  As per Section 11-A, the Collector is

under  a  statutory  obligation  to  make  an  award  under  Section  11

within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the

declaration under Section 6 of the Act.   Failure on the part of the

Collector  to make the award within the said period,  subject  to the

exclusion  of  the  time  as  provided  in  the  explanation  attached  to

Section 11-A entails lapse of acquisition proceedings.  On the other

7

hand,  Section 48 empowers the Government to withdraw from the

acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.  In

order to withdraw from  the acquisition, there has to be  publication of

notification  withdrawing  notification  under  Section  4(1)  and   the

declaration published under Section 6 of the Act.  As there was no

notification  issued  and  published  under  Section  48(1)  of  the  Act

withdrawing from acquisition  of  the land of  the appellants  covered

under Notifications dated March 7, 1996 and March 6, 1997 under

Sections  4  and  6  of  the  Act  respectively,  the  appellants  are  not

entitled to any compensation under Section 48(2) of the Act.   They

stated  that  acquisition  proceedings  have  not  been  withdrawn  but

lapsed  for  the  reason  that  the  Collector  failed  to  make  an  award

under Section 11-A of the Act relating to the land of the appellants.

With regard to Section 48-A, it was submitted that the said section

has not been incorporated in the Act for all intents and purposes.   Its

application  is  confined  to  the  schemes  framed  by  the  Urban

Improvement Trust  under Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922.   

11. An additional affidavit came to be filed by the 1st appellant

after the afore-referred response was filed by the respondents.  In his

additional  affidavit,  he  stated  that  he  made  application  under  the

Right to Information Act, 2005 and has procured (i) copy of the letter

8

dated March 5, 1999 from the Chief Administrator, HUDA; (ii)  three

pages of file notings regarding the decision not to approve acquisition

of  326.43 acres of land in Sector 20, Jagadhri;  (iii)  copy of office

memo dated January 10, 1997 and (iv) copy  of letter dated March

18, 1999 of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Jagadhri.   The 1st appellant,

thus, stated in the additional affidavit that the aforesaid documents

would  show  that  the  competent  authority  had  not  approved  the

acquisition  of  326.43  acres  of  land in  Sector  20,  Jagadhri  as  the

proposal was not viable and that the intention of the Government not

to acquire the land amounted to withdrawal from the acquisition for

all intents and purposes.

12. In reply to the additional affidavit, the respondents 2 to 4

reiterated that the intention of the State Government not to acquire

the land is not a withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48(1) of

the Act.

13. Mr.  P.S.Patwalia,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

appellants submitted at the outset, and in our view fairly, that Section

48-A has not been incorporated in the Act.  He did not rely  upon

Section 48-A.   He referred to the file notings regarding the decision

of  the Government not to approve the acquisition of 326.43 acres of

land in Sector 20, Jagadhri and communication to that effect to the

9

Land  Acquisition  Collector  and  submitted  that   non-approval  of

acquisition by the State Government  was nothing but  a voluntary

withdrawal from the acquisition and communication of that decision

to  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  was  sufficient  publication  of  the

decision  of  the  Government  to  withdraw  from   acquisition.   The

learned senior counsel would submit that Section 48 does not speak

of  notification  being  issued  for  withdrawal  of  acquisition  and,

therefore, the decision of the State Government in not approving the

acquisition was a decision of withdrawal from the acquisition and, the

petition for compensation made by the appellants under Section 48

(2) of the Act was maintainable.

14. The  counsel  for  the  respondent  No.1  as  well  as

respondent Nos. 2 to 4, however, urged that first proviso to Section

11  mandates  the  Collector  to  seek  approval  from the  appropriate

government  before  making  the  award.    In  the  present  case,  the

Collector  sought  approval  of  the  award  from  the  appropriate

government  but  the  government  did not  grant  approval  and,  thus,

award could not be made by the Collector.  It was submitted by the

learned counsel that non-grant of approval by the State Government

is not withdrawal from acquisition.  Since award was not made within

a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration,

1 0

the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land lapsed.  Thus,

according  to  the  learned  counsel,  the  State  Government  had  not

withdrawn from the acquisition and there being no  notification issued

to that effect,  petition for compensation under Section 48(2) of the

Act  was not maintainable.

15. On  the  contentions  urged,  two  points  arise  for  our

consideration:

(one)    Whether  in  view of  the  decision   of  the government  in not approving  the award proposed by  the  Collector,  the  award  could  not  be  made within  the  period  of  two  years  from  the  date  of publication  of  declaration  (final  notification  under Section 6) and the acquisition of land lapsed, would such  lapse  of  acquisition  proceedings  amount  to withdrawal  from  the  acquisition  by  the  State Government under Section 48(1) of the Act ?   (two)      Whether  the  decision  of  the  State Government  for  withdrawal  from  the  acquisition under Section 48 (1) is mandatorily required to be published in the official gazette ?

re : point (one)   

16. Section 4 of the Act provides for publication of preliminary

notification whenever it appears to the appropriate government that

land is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose.  Inter

alia,  such  notification  is  required  to  be  published  in  the  official

gazette.

1 1

17. The person  interested  in  the land having been notified

under Section 4 may file objections to the acquisition of that land and

other aspects as provided in Section 5-A.

18. When  the  appropriate  government  is  satisfied  after

considering the report from the Collector, if any, made under Section

5-A(2) that   any particular land is needed for a public purpose, as

per Section 6 of the Act a declaration shall be made and, inter alia,

published in the official gazette.  The said declaration is conclusive

evidence that land is needed for a public purpose.   

19. Section  9  makes  a  provision  for  notice  to  persons

interested in the land intimating them the government’s intention to

take  possession  and  that  they  may  claim  compensation  for  their

interest in such land.

20. Section 11 provides for  an enquiry into measurements,

value and claims and award by the Collector.  It reads as follows:

“11. (1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which  the  enquiry  has  been  adjourned,  the Collector  shall  proceed  to  enquire  into  the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the  notification  under  Section  4,  sub-section  (1), and  into  the  respective  interests  of  the  persons claiming  the  compensation  and  shall  make  an award under his hand of –

1 2

    (i)  the true area of the land;

(ii)  the compensation which in his opinion should be  allowed for the land; and

(iii) the apportionment  of  the said compensation among all  the persons known or believed to be  interested  in  the  land,  of  whom,  or  of whose claims, he has information, whether or not  they  have  respectively  appeared  before him:

Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector  under  this  sub-section  without  the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf:

Provided further that it shall be competent for the  appropriate  Government  to  direct  that  the Collector  may  make  such  award  without  such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.

(2)    Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub- section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of  the  Collector  in  the  form  prescribed  by  rules made  by  the  appropriate  Government,  he  may, without  making  further  enquiry,  make  an  award according to the terms of such agreement.

(3)    The determination  of  compensation  for  any land  under  sub-section  (2)  shall  not  in  any  way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.

1 3

(4)   Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the Registration  Act,  1908,  (16  of  1908),  no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall  be liable to registration under that Act.”

21. Section 11-A provides as follows:

“11-A.  The Collector shall  make an award under Section 11 within a period of  two years  from the date of  the publication of the declaration and if no award  is  made  within  that  period,  the  entire proceedings  for  the  acquisition  of  the  land  shall lapse:

Provided  that  in  a  case  where  the  said declaration  has  been  published  before  the commencement  of  the  Land  Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall  be made within   a   period  of  two  years   from  such commencement.

Explanation —In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding  to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.”

22. Section  48  enables  the  State  Government  to  withdraw

from  the  acquisition  in  the  circumstances  mentioned  therein.   It

reads:

“48 – (1) 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.

1 4

(2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount  of  compensation  due for  the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or  of  any  proceedings  thereunder,  and  shall  pay such amount to be person interested, together with all  costs  reasonably  incurred  by  him  in  the prosecution  of  the  proceedings  under  this  Act relating to the said land.

(3)The provisions of Part III  of  this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section.”

23.        From the perusal  of Section 11, particularly first  proviso

thereto,  it  is  apparent  that  the  approval  of  the  appropriate

government to the award proposed by the Collector is mandatory.  In

other  words,  it  is  imperative  for  the  Collector  to  seek  previous

approval  of  the  appropriate  government  to  the  award  that  he

proposes to make unless  the case is covered by Section 11(2).   If

an award under  Section 11 is  not  made by the Collector  within a

period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration,

the  entire  proceedings  for  the  acquisition  of  the  land  shall  lapse

under Section 11-A.  Section 11-A  provides maximum period within

which the award from the date of the publication of the declaration

has  to  be  made.   In  default,  the  consequence  is  that  the  entire

proceedings for the acquisition would lapse. Section 48(1) empowers

1 5

the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition of any land

subject to  two conditions namely; (i) the case is  not provided under

Section 36 and (ii) that possession  has not been taken.  Section 11-

A and the  consequence provided therein  i.e.,  lapse  of  acquisition

proceedings in the event of the award  having not been made within

a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration

under Section 6 is entirely distinct and different than the decision that

the government may take for withdrawal from the acquisition under

Section 48(1), provided possession has not been taken.  It is only in

a case where the Government withdraws from the acquisition under

Section  48(1),  that  by  virtue  of  Section  48(2),  the  claim  for

compensation for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence

of  the acquisition proceedings together  with costs  could be made.

The statutory lapse of acquisition proceedings  under Section 11-A

as a result of non-grant of approval of proposed  award by the State

Government  or  for  any  other  reason  would  not  tantamount  to

withdrawal  from  acquisition  by  the  State  Government  as

contemplated  under  Section  48(1).   As  a  necessary  corollary,  no

claim for compensation could be made under Section 48(2) of the

Act.

1 6

24.  In  the  context  of  Section  48,  the  word  “withdraw”  is

indicative of the voluntary and conscious decision of the government

for withdrawal from the acquisition; statutory lapse under Section 11-

A is entirely different.  The object of Section 11-A is to arrest delay in

making award.  An obligation is cast on the Collector under Section

11-A to  make the award within  the  time prescribed  therein  failing

which statutory consequence follows namely, acquisition proceedings

lapse automatically.  This Court in Abdul Majeed   said:

“The  word  ‘withdraws’  would  indicate  that  the Government by its own action voluntarily withdraws from  the  acquisition;  the  Government  has necessarily  to  withdraw  from  the  acquisition,  in other  words,  there  should  be  publication  of  the withdrawal   of  the  notification  published  under Section  4(1)  and  the  declaration  published  under Section 6 by exercising the power under Section 48 (1).  Sub-section (2) of Section 48 would then apply. In  this  case,  admittedly,  the  Government  had not exercised  the  power  under  Section  48(1) withdrawing from the notification under Section 4(1) or the declaration under Section 6.  The statutory lapse under Section 11-A is distinct different from voluntary  act  on  the  part  of  the  Government. Therefore,  it  must  be  by  withdrawal  of  the notification by voluntary act on the part of the State under Section 48(1).  Under these circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to avail of the remedy of sub-section (2) of Section 48.”

1 7

25. As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector

followed  Abdul  Majeed and  held  that  the  claim  of  the  appellants

under Section 48(2) was not maintainable.

26. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Collector moved

the government seeking its  approval for the proposed award. This

was  imperative  as  per  the  first  proviso  to  Section  11.   The

government considered the matter and did not approve the proposed

award.  When no such approval was granted by the government, the

Collector could not have made the award and in fact he did not.  As a

result  thereof,  the  acquisition  proceedings  lapsed.   The  lapse  of

acquisition  proceedings  in  the  circumstances  under  Section  11-A

cannot and would not amount to withdrawal from acquisition by the

government  under  Section  48(1).   We  answer  the  point  (one)  in

negative.

re : point (two)

27. The question now needs to be considered is:   whether

the decision of the Government for withdrawal of acquisition under

Section 48(1) is required to be published in official gazette ?   It is

true that Section 48 does not in express terms require the decision of

the government for withdrawal of acquisition to be published in the

1 8

official  gazette.  In  Abdul  Majeed,   this  Court  has  held  that  there

should be publication of the withdrawal of the notification published

under  Section  4(1)  and declaration  under  Section  6  by exercising

power  under  Section  48(1).   Even  on  first  principles,  such

requirement  appears  to  be  implicit.   The  Act  provides  for  the

publication of notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of

the  Act  in  official  gazette.  Obviously  the  withdrawal  from  land

acquisition proceedings by taking resort to Section 48(1) of the Act

also must be in the like manner.   As a matter of fact, this aspect is

no more res integra.  In the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. State of

Gujarat And Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 387, the identical contentions which

have been advanced before us by the senior counsel were raised in

that case.  Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was also

pressed into service there.  This Court considered:  

“It  was submitted by Mr. Salve that  Section 48 of the Act did not contemplate issue of any notification and  withdrawal  from  the  acquisition  could  be  by order  simpliciter.   He said  that  Sections  4  and 6 talked  of  notifications  being  issued  under  those provisions  but  there  was  no  such  mandate  in Section 48.  It  was thus contended that when the statute did not require to issue any notification for withdrawal  from  the  acquisition,  reference  to Section  21  of  the  General  Clauses  Act  was  not correct.  Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is as under:     

1 9

“21. Power to  issue, to include power to add  to,  to  amend,  vary  or  rescind, notifications,  orders,  rules  or  bye-laws.— Where by any Central  Act,  or  Regulation,  a power to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws  is  conferred,  then  that  power includes   a  power,  exercisable  in  the  like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if  any) to add to, amend, vary or rescind  any   notifications,  orders,  rules   or bye-laws so issued.”

Mr. Salve said that Section 21 expressly referred to the  powers  being  given to  issue  notifications  etc. under  an  Act  or  Regulation  and  under  this  that power included power to  withdraw or rescind  any notification  in  a  similar  fashion.   It  was  therefore submitted that  when Section  48 did not  empower the State Government to issue any notification and it  could  not  be  read  into  that  provision  that withdrawal had to be issued by a notification.  His argument, therefore, appeared to be that on correct interpretation of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act  before  reaching  the  stage  of  Section  48,  the State  Government  could  withdraw  notifications under  Sections  4  and  6  of  the  Act  by  issuing notifications  withdrawing  or  rescinding  earlier notifications  and  that  would  be  the  end  to  the acquisition proceedings.  We do not think that Mr. Salve  is  quite  right  in  his  submissions.   When Sections 4 and 6 notifications are issued, much has been done towards the acquisition process and that process  cannot  be reversed merely by rescinding those notifications.   Rather  it  is  Section 48 under which,  after  withdrawal  from  acquisition  is  made, compensation due for any damage suffered by the owner during the course of acquisition proceedings is  determined  and  given  to  him.   It  is,  therefore, implicit  that  withdrawal from acquisition has to be notified.

2 0

Principles  of  law  are,  therefore,  well  settled.   A notification in the Official Gazette is required to be issued if the State Government decides to withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 of the Act of any land of which possession has not been taken”.   

28. In view of the legal position exposited by this Court in the

case of  Larsen & Toubro Ltd.,  with which we respectfully agree, we

hold, as it must be, that decision of the government for withdrawal

from acquisition  has  to  be  published  in  the  official  gazette.   We

answer point (two) in affirmative.

29. In so far as present case is concerned, firstly, there is no

decision by the government for withdrawal from the acquisition.  Even

if we assume for the argument sake that such decision was taken on

the file,  since such decision has not  been published in the official

gazette,  there  is  no  withdrawal  from  the  acquisition  by  the  State

Government  within the meaning of  Section  48(1)  of  the Act.   The

application under Section 48(2) of the Act was, therefore, rightly held

to be not maintainable.   

30. In  view  of  what  we  have  discussed  above,  all  these

appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed with no

order as to costs.

……………………..J (D.K. Jain)    

2 1

……………………..J (R.M. Lodha)    

New Delhi, March 3, 2009.

2 2