- (1.) The acquisition of petitioner's land is primarily challenged on the ground that out of the total area (13 kanals and 16 marlas), notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , award dated September 7, 1973 (Annexure P.4) was announced by the Land Acquisition collector qua 4 kanals and 3 marlas only and in view of that the acquisition of the remaining land, i.e., 9 kanals and 13 marlas should be taken to have been abandoned by the respondent authorities. This submission is founded solely on the following lines occurring in the impugned award, Annexure P. 4, where it deals with the area acquired :- AREA OF THE LAND "The area of the land under acquisition vide this ward, as given in the notification acquiring department was interested to acquire only the 1.11 acre of land and same was found correct on actual measurement done on the spot by the land acquisition staff. The detail of the area given in the statement No. 1 which has been prepared in accordance with para 36-I of the Financial Commissioner's Standing Order No. 28". This stand of the petitioner, however, is refuted by the Joint Secretary to the Government in his affidavit wherein he has said that acquisition in respect of land measuring 9 kanals & 13 marlas was never abandoned. It is further maintained on behalf of the Government that piecemeal acquisition of the area notified under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act does not offend any provision of law. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter I find no merit in the stand of the petitioner.
(2.) It is not disputed that in view of the provisions of Section 48 of the Act it is only the Government which has the liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land at any stage before the possession of the same has been taken by it. From a bare reading of the above noted contents of the award and the petition it is manifest that there was no averment even that it was the Government which had abandoned the acquisition of the petitioner's area i.e., 9 kanals and 13 marlas. In view of this factual position the claim of the petitioner that this area of this stood released from acquisition cannot possibly be sustained.
(3.) The only other argument raised by Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the respondent authorities failed to complete the acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time, i.e., January 30, 1973 (when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued) to Dec. 29, 1978 (when a notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued qua this land, i.e., 9 kanals and 13 marlas) it should be assumed that either the authorities and no need to acquire this land on the date it was so notified under the Act or the said exercise of power was only a colourable exercise of power with a view to seal the price of the land in question. No such plea, as is now sought to be raised by the learned counsel, is there in the petition itself. Had it been so pleaded the respondent authorities would have been at liberty or might have even explained the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the acquisition in question is not impugned on the ground now sought to be raised and in the absence of the same I do not feel called upon to adjudicate upon this question.;