Acquisition Proceedings Concluded Under Repealed 1894 Act Cannot Be Reopened For De-notification Under Section 48

The petitioners’ father owned land in Village Nana Zinzavadar, acquired for the Narmada Yojana canal via notifications in 1994 and 1995

An award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was passed on March 26, 1998, and compensation was disbursed to the owner

In 2007, the father allegedly refunded the compensation via a banker’s cheque without any formal order or instruction

The petitioners filed this writ in 2019, seeking de-notification of the land, claiming they remained in physical possession and that the 2013 symbolic possession (panchnama) was improper

Revenue records had already mutated the land in favor of the acquiring body

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the de-notification or release of the acquired land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following the alleged refund of compensation and claim of continuous physical possession

2. Whether the repealed provisions of the 1894 Act can be invoked after the enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides that once possession is taken, the land vests absolutely in the State free from encumbrances

Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others (2020), establishing that drawing a panchnama is a valid mode of taking possession

Section 48 of the 1894 Act regarding withdrawal from acquisition was considered, alongside Section 114 of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which govern the effect of repeal and the saving of previous proceedings

The Court observed that the acquisition concluded in 1998 when the award was passed and compensation was accepted

The subsequent "refund" in 2007 was unauthorized and lacked legal standing

Applying Indore Development Authority, the Court held that the 2013 panchnama constituted valid legal possession, causing the land to vest in the State, thereby terminating any right to seek de-notification under Section 48

Furthermore, the Court noted a gross delay; the petitioners challenged the 2013 possession and the revenue entry only in 2019

Since the 1894 Act was repealed by the 2013 Act, the Court held that Section 48 could no longer be invoked for new relief, and the 2016 communication from the Special Land Acquisition Officer suggesting otherwise was legally incompetent and "in the teeth of the law"

The Court answered that symbolic possession via panchnama is sufficient to complete acquisition

While refusing the prayer for the land's release, the Court directed the Executive Engineer to conduct a factual inquiry regarding the 2007 refund; if verified, the compensation amount (with interest) may be repaid to the petitioners as legal heirs upon proper application