(https://allindianlegalupdates.blogspot.com/2021/04/x-government-acquired-land-belonging-to_14.html)
Issue:
Whether withdrawal of acquisition without taking possession is valid? YES
Whether notice is required for withdrawal of acquisition? NO
Whether the challenge of Y is maintainable? NO
Rule:
Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act: Completion of acquisition not compulsory but compensation should be awarded when not completed.
Application:
According to Section 48 except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings there under, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land. The provision of part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay Vs. M/s Godrej and Boyce, (1988) 1 SCC 50 the Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Section 48 of the Act noted in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Report, that Section 48 gives liberty to the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before possession of acquired land is taken. The State Government can exercise the power of withdrawal unilaterally. There is no requirement that the owner of the acquired land should be given an opportunity of being heard before the State Government withdraws from acquisition. A decision of the State Government to withdraw from acquisition need not necessarily be backed by reasons.
Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Sigh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC 296 that objections in a Section 5-A inquiry can be specific or generic. A specific objection can be of two types, namely, one relating to the land of the objector which is to say that the landowner can raise a specific objection to his parcel of land being acquired and the other relating to the landowner/objector himself meaning thereby that in the case of that particular landowner, the land should not be acquired. A generic objection would be a challenge to the very purpose for which the land is being acquired by raising a contention that either the purpose of acquisition is not a public purpose or even otherwise there is no public purpose in acquiring the land. As far as challenge to acquisition of land post a Section 6 declaration is concerned, it can only be generic and that challenge can be decided only by an appropriate Court of Law.
Om Prakash and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 1 : Hochtief Garnmon Vs. State of Orissa and Others, (1975) 2SCC 649; Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579; Council for Civil Service Unions Vs. Minister for Civil Service, (1984) 3 All ER 935; Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. Vs. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223; Satpal and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 17.
Conclusion:
In the instant problem, the State Government has power to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before possession of acquired land is taken. Hence Y cannot challenge the withdrawal of acquisition.