Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5377 OF 2016 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.19642 OF 2012)

Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority ... Appellant

Versus

S.S. Naidu & Ors.  ... Respondents

WITH

C.A. NOS.5378-5379 OF 2016 (@ S.L.P.(C) NOS.19644-19645 OF 2012)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.233 OF 2013  IN  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5377 OF 2016 (@ SLP (C) NO.19642 OF 2012)

Page 2

2

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the

appeals have been finally heard today.

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 20th March, 1978.

The respondents are the land-owners of the land forming part

of  TS No.83/1 of Waltair Ward of Visakhapatnam, which is

the  subject  matter  of  these  appeals.   Necessary  notification

under Section 6 of the Act was also issued. The award was

made and ultimately compensation in respect 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.  

Page 3

3

4. After the Award was made, the respondents/land-owners

of  the  land  in  question  made  a  request  to  the  authorities

concerned  for  withdrawal  of  the  acquisition,  though

possession of the land in question was, in fact, taken on 20 th

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was ordered to be withdrawn under G.O.M. No.156 dated 25th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Order,  acquisition  of  the  land  in  question  was  withdrawn.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whereby  the  acquisition  proceedings  was  withdrawn,  was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 11th November, 1983.

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

Page 4

4

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  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  of  1983  praying  for  quashing  of  G.O.M.

No.714 dated 11th November, 1983, whereby withdrawal of the

land acquisition 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.1081 of 1984 and the

said Writ Appeal was dismissed on 1st February, 1989.   

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

Page 5

5

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

disposed of on 13th 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.2312  of  1998,  but  the  said  Writ  Appeal  was

dismissed on 27th February, 2002.  The Respondents also filed

Writ  Appeal  No.1074  of  1999  for  return  of  the  land  in

question,  which  was  allowed  by  the  High  Court  and  the

authorities were directed 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

22nd 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.

Page 6

6

8. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, by an

order dated 18th May, 2009, by virtue of G.O.M. No.314, the

State  Government  decided  to  withdraw  the  acquisition

proceedings in respect of the land in question but, once again,

on  18th August,  2009,  by  virtue  of  G.O.M.  No.515,  the

Government authorities cancelled the decision with regard to

withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings.  Again, Writ Petition

No.17249 of 2009 was filed challenging the said decision dated

18th August, 2009.  The said Writ Petition was allowed on 7 th

February,  2011.   Against  the  said decision rendered in the

said Writ Petition, Writ Appeal No.475 of 2011 and Writ Appeal

No.1455  of  2011  were  filed  by  Visakhapatnam  Urban

Development  Authority  and  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh

respectively. Both the Appeals were dismissed by a common

judgment dated 24th January, 2012 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

Page 7

7

taken  on  20th 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 of Section 48 of the

Act.   Relevant portion of Section 48 of the Act is reproduced

hereinbelow :-

“48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but  compensation  to  be  awarded  when  not completed. -(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.”

10. Every time, when the authorities decided to withdraw the

acquisition proceedings, power given under Section 48 of the

Act was 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  proceedings  was  initiated  only  after

possession  of  the  land  in  question  was  taken  from  the

Page 8

8

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 Court was having some sympathy for the

land-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.

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  of  litigation

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

Page 9

9

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 drawn

litigation which has not helped them at all.  

14. The fact remains that the land in question is required for

a 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 of a public road is definitely

a public purpose for which the land can be acquired.

15. We  have  considered  the  submissions  made  by  the

learned 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.  

Page 10

10

16. In  the  circumstances,  we  quash  and  set  aside  the

impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2012 delivered by the

Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.475 and 1455

of 2011.   The Appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

17.  In view of the fact that Civil Appeal No.5377 of 2016 (@

SLP (C)  No.19642 of  2012) has been allowed, the contempt

proceedings would not survive and are, accordingly, disposed

of.

 ………………..……………….J.

  (ANIL R. DAVE)

…….…………..……………….J.    (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

     NEW DELHI; JUNE 29, 2016.