DILIP KUMAR GOUSHALAWALE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by an order refusing to withdraw from the acquisition of the land which was acquired way back in the year 1988. The order Annexure P-27 has been passed on 7-7-1999 by State Government refusing to withdraw from the acquisition of the land on the ground that possession was taken on 16-9-92 and handed over to M. P. Housing Board. Mutation of M. P. Housing Board has also taken place. Thus, it has been held that it is not possible to denotify the land and withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that the land in question falls outside zoning plan though the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1988 invoking the urgency clause but houses have not been constructed so far by M. P. Housing Board and the land in question is no more required by them. It is also the submission that order (P-27) has been passed in mechanical manner under Section 48 of the Act rejecting the submissions raised in the representations dated 12-5-98 and 21-9-98. The Minister has also directed as per P-17 and P-22 to submit fresh housing scheme. Thus, in all fairness considering the facts and circumstances of the case the land in question ought to have been denotified and withdrawn from acquisition. It is also the case of the petitioner that possession still remains with them and has not been taken away.

(3.) A return has been filed by respondent No. 2 in which it has been contended that possession of the land was taken as per possession Receipt (R-2/4) on 16-9-92 and lianded over to the M. P. Housing Board. Award Annexure P-12 was passed on 23-5-91. Compensation has also been disbursed. The land absolutely vests in the State Government. It is also the submission that once possession has been taken provision of Section 48 of the Act is not applicable and there is no power to denotify the land once possession has been taken. Respondent No. 1 has also taken the similar stand as that of the M. P. Housing Board.