(1.) AN application for recall of the judgment and order dated 27. 11. 2007 has been filed by the applicant, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Hapur on various grounds and particularly that the applicant was a neces-sary party though not impleaded in the said writ petition. The Court could not have been directed the State Government to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as 'act 1894') in view of the fact that possession of the land has already been taken. Symbolic possession is sufficient and there is no requirement of actual and physical possession of the land be transferred. The application has been heard today. This Court vide judgment and order dated 27. 11. 2007 has asked the State Govern ment to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 48 of the Act, 1894 in the light of the judgments of Supreme Court particularly in Union of India and another v. Bal Ram Singh and another, 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 136; State of Tamilnadu and another v. Mahalakshmi Ammal and others, (1996) 7 SCC 269; and Sube Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, JT 2001 (6) SC 578 wherein it has been held that an application for exemption from acquisition can be entertained and land may be exempted from acquisition provided the State Gov ernment is satisfied that exemption shall not disturb the planed development and the land if exempted would be adjusted in conformity with the planed develop ment for which the scheme has been prepared.
(2.) THE order under recall referred to the earlier judgment in Writ Petition No. 38972 of 2007, Amar Singh and another v. State of U. P. and others, wherein it had been clarified that such an application shall be entertained by the State Govern ment provided the possession has not already been taken.
(3.) IN State of T. N. and another v. Mahatakshmi Ammal and others, (1996) 7 SCC 269, without taking note of the earlier judgment in Balwant Narayan Bhagde (supra) held as under: "possession of the acquired land would be taken only by way of a memo randum, Panchnama, which is a legally accepted norm. It would not be pos sible to take any physical possession. Therefore, subsequent continuation, if any, had by the erstwhile owner is only illegal or unlawful possession which does not bind the Government nor vested under Section 16 divested in the illegal occupant. "