Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) ON 26th March. 1969. the State Government issu ed a notification under Section 4 (1). Land Acquisition Act, notifying that the land mentioned in the schedule thereto was needed for public purposes. Plots Nos. 283. 284 and 285 along with several other plots of village Jamalpur Mafi were in cluded in this notification. In due course on 13th November, 1969, the State Gov ernment issued the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act in respect of the plots which were mentioned in the notification under Section 4. On 27th July. 1970 however, the State Govern ment issued a notification stating that the Governor is pleased to make the fol lowing amendments in the notification dated 13th November, 1969. The amend ments were the deletion of plot No. 283 and the reduction of the areas of plots Nos. 284 and 285 by one biswa each. The effect of this amendment was that the Section 6 notification stood amended by deletion of plot No. 283 therefrom and reducing the area of plots Nos. 284 and 285 by one biswa respectively. There after the State Government issued yet another notification on the very next day namely July 28. 1970, whereby it Was stated that in continuation of the notifi cation dated 26th March. 1969 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the Governor is pleased to declare under Section 6 of the Act that he is satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule is needed for a public purpose and that under S. 17 of the said Act to direct the Collector of Aligarh to take possession of the land. The schedule mentioned 3 plots namely 283. 284 and 285. In regard to plots 284 and 285 only one biswa area was in cluded. Thus the position was that at first the Government excluded plot No. 283 and one biswa each of plots Nos. 284 and 285 from the notification under S. 6 issued in November, 1969 but on 28th July, 1970 they issued a fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act in respect of these plots.
(2.) THE appellant instituted a writ petition in this Court challenging the ear lier notification under Sections 4 and 6. Various grounds urged in support of that writ petition, however, did not find fav our with the learned single Judge of this Court who dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the appellant filed the pre sent appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant applied for am endment of the writ petition by inclu sion of the notifications dated 27th and 28th July. 1970. After hearing learned counsel, we permitted the amendment. Learned counsel for the appel lant has raised several points in support of the appeal. The first point was that the Government having withdrawn from the acquisition it could not acquire the plots with respect to which the with drawal had taken place without issuing a fresh notification under Section 4 and without making a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 48 (1) the Land Acquisition Act gives liberty to the Government to with draw from any acquisition of land of which possession has not been taken. Admittedly possession of the plots Nos, 283. 284 and 285 had not been taken when the notification dated 27th July, 1970, was issued. It was urged that the effect of this notification was that the Government had withdrawn from the acquisition. In our opinion, the submis sion is misconceived. Withdrawal from the acquisition would have taken place if the notification under Section 4 had also been amended, so as to exclude the three plots in dispute. On 27th July, 1970. the position was that these plots were included in the notification under Section 4 (1) and the report under S. 5-A had. after considering the objections of the appellant in regard to these three plots also, made the requisite recom mendations with respect to them. But the Government had not issued a notifi cation under Section 6 in respect of these three plots. The effect of the notifica tion dated 27th July, 1970. is to delete these plots from the notification dated 13th November. 1969, under Section 6. Thus the 13th November, 1969 notifi cation would henceforth be read as not including these plots. That is why on 28th July. 1970. the Government issued a fresh notification under Section 6 mak ing the requisite declaration with respect to these three plots which had been omit ted from the earlier notification under Section 6. Section 6 as it stood after its amendment by the Amending Act 13 of 1967 permitted the State Government to issue more than one notification under Section 6. In this situation it cannot be held that the State Government with drew from the acquisition proceedings. All that can be said is that these three plots were for some reason deleted from the notification under Section 6 with the result that there was no declaration with respect to these three plots by the notification dated 13th November, 1969 or till 28th July, 1970 when the requi site notification under Section 6 was issued. The decisions relied on by learn ed counsel are not helpful. In Brii Nath v. U. P. Govt, AIR 1953 All 182 the Government had withdrawn the notifi cation under Section 4 itself. It was held that thereafter the Government had to restart acquisition proceedings from the beginning with respect to the same land.
(3.) IN Harihara Prasad v. Jagan-nadham, AIR 1955 Andhra 184 it was held that the mere withdrawal of a notifi cation under Section 4 does not amount to a decision on objections raised under Section 5-A in favour of the applicant whose land is sought to be acquired. The Government is entitled to reconsider its previous decision withdrawing the ear lier notification under Section 4 and re start acquisition proceedings with respect to the same land. This would show that even the withdrawal of a notification under Section 4 does not mean that the objections under Section 5-A have been upheld. The Government is free to re start the proceedings. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that exemption of some land from the notifi cation under Section 6 amounts to with drawal from the acquisition.;