U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Ram Singh (D) Th. LRs. & Ors.
Background
The appellant, a state housing board, had acquired land in 1973-77 for a housing scheme, claiming possession was taken in 1981-83 and an award passed in 1985. Decades later, in 2005, the state government issued a notification purporting to withdraw/exempt the same land from acquisition, on the ground that actual possession had never been taken. The housing board objected, leading the government to cancel its own 2005 notification in 2008. The original landowner's heirs and subsequent purchasers challenged this 2008 cancellation before the Allahabad High Court, which set it aside and restored the 2005 withdrawal; the housing board then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 is permissible only where actual ("khas") possession, not merely paper or symbolic possession, was never taken, and only after giving the acquiring authority a hearing. Examining the record, the Court found the housing board could not produce a genuine notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act (a document it relied on was actually just a notice of the award date, not a possession-related notice), so its claim of actual possession remained unproven. The Court also found that the 2008 order cancelling the 2005 withdrawal had wrongly relied on a 2006 government order that was expressly prospective and could not undo the earlier 2005 notification. Since the housing board had never claimed, in its own representation, that it was denied a hearing before the 2005 withdrawal, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision, while clarifying the housing board remains free to acquire the land afresh in accordance with law.
Lesson Learnt
A government's power to withdraw from a land acquisition survives only if the challenger can show actual possession was legally taken beforehand; producing ambiguous or misdated paperwork years later cannot substitute for proof of genuine, physical possession, and a later executive order cannot retroactively override an earlier valid notification unless it says so.