Acquisition Proceedings Attain Finality and Become Irrevocable Upon Passing of Award and Taking Physical Possession

The petitioners, owners of a petrol pump and workshop on Khasra No. 1352 in Lalsot, challenged the acquisition of 6 Biswas of their land for the establishment of a Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard.

A Section 4(1) notification was issued on 30.01.1985 under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.

Despite a Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) report dated 01.08.1986 recommending release of the land, the State invoked urgency provisions under Section 17(4) on 17.06.1986, dispensing with the Section 5-A inquiry.

Possession was taken via memo on 24.07.1986, and an award was passed on 29.02.1988.

The petitioners argued the acquisition lapsed because no award was passed, possession remained with them, and a 14.06.1990 notification (later withdrawn on 26.12.1990) had already de-acquired the land.

1. Whether the acquisition proceedings were illegal due to the invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1953.

2. Whether the land vested in the State upon passing of the award and taking of possession, precluding subsequent challenge.

3. Whether the de-acquisition notification dated 14.06.1990 created any enforceable rights in favor of the petitioners.

The court applied Sections 4(1), 6, 16, 17(4), and 48 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.

It relied on the doctrine that once land vests in the State free from encumbrances under Sections 16 or 17, it cannot be divested or de-notified under Section 48.

Key precedents included Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, establishing that vesting is absolute once possession is taken, even if compensation is delayed or an award is pending.

The court also applied the rule from Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal that for vacant land, a panchnama (possession memo) is sufficient to prove legal transfer of possession.

The Court found the public purpose (Mandi Yard) valid and the invocation of urgency not arbitrary despite the time gap.

It determined that legal possession was taken on 24.07.1986 via a valid possession memo, as the 6 Biswas were vacant land.

Regarding the award dated 29.02.1988, the Court rejected allegations of forgery, noting that signatures on certified copies often differ in format (e.g., "sd/-") and that the document contained valid approval dates from the Government.

Critically, the Court reasoned that because the land vested in the State in 1986/1988, the subsequent 1990 de-acquisition notification was void ab initio; the State lacks the statutory power to withdraw from acquisition once vesting is complete.

The LAO’s 1986 recommendation was deemed merely advisory and irrelevant as it was issued after the Section 17(4) notification and taking of possession.

The Court held that once vesting occurs through possession and award, the land cannot revert to the owner through executive orders.

The withdrawal of the de-acquisition notification was upheld as a corrective measure.

The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.