Subsequent duplicate acquisition notifications are quashed where the land already stood acquired and vested in the State.

The petitioner challenged, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the acquisition of her 1 kanal 1 marla land comprised in Rectangle/Khasra No.18//1/2/2/2, Village Dhakola/Dhakaula, District Ambala, pursuant to notifications dated 20 June 2005 under Section 4 and 26 June 2006 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The respondents stated that the same land had already been acquired through notifications dated 21 June 1999 under Section 4 and 23 March 2000 under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. An award was passed on 18 January 2002, compensation was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector, and possession was taken through dakhal karwahi No.540 dated 26 May 2004.

The respondents conceded that the petitioner’s land had subsequently been included in the 2005–2006 acquisition proceedings inadvertently.

Whether the notifications dated 20 June 2005 under Section 4 and 26 June 2006 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the consequential award, were liable to be quashed insofar as they related to land already acquired under the earlier notifications?

Whether quashing the subsequent acquisition proceedings could confer any substantive benefit upon the petitioner when the land had already been acquired, possession had been taken, and the earlier acquisition had not been challenged?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to examine the legality of the impugned acquisition proceedings.

Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 govern the preliminary notification and declaration for acquisition, respectively.

The Court applied the principle that once land has been validly acquired, an award has been passed, compensation has been tendered or deposited, and possession has been taken, the land stands vested in the State; a subsequent acquisition notification concerning the same land is redundant and liable to be quashed.

However, quashing the erroneous subsequent proceedings does not invalidate the earlier acquisition or confer a right to restoration where the earlier notifications and award remain unchallenged.

The respondents’ pleadings established that the petitioner’s land formed part of the larger parcel already notified under Sections 4 and 6 in 1999 and 2000, respectively, and covered by the award dated 18 January 2002.

The record further indicated that compensation had been deposited and possession had been taken on 26 May 2004, demonstrating completion of the earlier acquisition and vesting of the land in the State.

Since the petitioner did not dispute the earlier acquisition or challenge the earlier notifications and award, the Court held that the later 2005 and 2006 notifications represented an inadvertent second acquisition of land already vested in the State.

They were therefore liable to be quashed, but such quashing could not provide the petitioner any benefit against the subsisting earlier acquisition.

It clarified that the land remained validly acquired and vested in the State by virtue of the earlier notifications dated 21 June 1999 and 23 March 2000 and the award dated 18 January 2002.