Judgment :- 1. This is a case where the Government has got itself into trouble due to lack of proper planning, in a hurry to implement projects without proper schemes. That is obvious from the facts of this case. 2. There are 10 petitioners in this original petition. The lands belonging to these petitioners were taken possession of by the Land Acquisition Officer on 16-2-1985 for the purpose of construction of Thonnalloor M.D. Canal from CH 5000 to 7500 metres. The notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 12-2-1983. It was thereafter that possession was taken on 16-2-1985, in view of the alleged urgency in the acquisition in regard to which the District Collector, Ernakulam had accorded sanction under S.19 of the Central Land Acquisition Act on 12-11-1984. Petitioners allege that subsequent to taking possession on 16-2-1985, valuable improvements belonging to them in the areas, namely, yielding rubber trees, coconut trees, pepper wines, pinapple plants and the like as kayyalas and others were removed by the respondents. Petitioners were not however paid any value for the improvements or for the land taken possession under S.17(3), (3)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have been pressing for payment of these amounts which are due to them under S.17(3), (3)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and since repeated requests did not result of any payment, they have come forward with this original petition for directing the respondents to make payment of the value of the improvements as also 80 percent of the land value as enjoined in the Act. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate counter affidavits. It is stated that recently and in January 1987, respondents have paid an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,07,000/- towards the value of improvements. Further amounts have not been paid. It is stated however that the acquisition has now become unnecessary. The Superintending Engineer, Muvattupuzha has informed by his letter dated 11-1-1987, that requisition for the land between CH 5,000 and 10,540 metres is withdrawn by him due to financial constraints. Respondent No.1 in its counter affidavit states that the requisition has been withdrawn by the Superintending Engineer not merely for financial constraints, but also because of certain technical reasons as set forth in Para.5 of the counter affidavit. 4. Respondent No.1 in its counter affidavit states that the requisition has been withdrawn by the Superintending Engineer not merely for financial constraints, but also because of certain technical reasons as set forth in Para.5 of the counter affidavit. 4. Pursuant to the notification under S.3(1) of the Act, and the invoking of the urgency clause under S.17, the declarations under S.6 have been published in the Kerala Gazette dated 14th and 28th October, 1986. The land has been taken possession of as early as on 16-2-1985, The only further fact now disclosed is that the Superintending Engineer has stated that his recommendation for acquisition of this land is withdrawn for financial and technical reasons. No notification actually withdrawing the lands in question from the acquisition has so far been published, even assuming that such withdrawal from the acquisition is permissible. 5. Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Pius Kuriakose points out that under S.48 of the Land Acquisition Act, withdrawal of the land from the acquisition is not possible at this stage. Under S.48(1), Government has the right to withdraw any land from the acquisition only if possession of the land has not been taken. In other words, if possession is taken pursuant to the proceedings, there is no question of withdrawing from the acquisition. In such cases, the Government is bound to complete the acquisition and pay the compensation due to the land owner. The Superintendenting Engineer's withdrawal of the requisition is therefore mis-conceived, and it is not capable of implementation. The position therefore is that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the notification dated 12-2-1985 have become fait accompli and are not capable of withdrawal by the respondents. Petitioners are therefore entitled to have the proceeding completed and to be paid the compensation due to them without any further delay. It is obvious that the delay in the matter is not due to any fault on the part of the petitioners but due to the respondents themselves. Unless directions are given, the proceedings are likely to get unnecessarily delayed. The respondents did not even pay the value of the improvements or 80 per cent of the land value on 16-2-1985 when possession was taken though the law enjoined the Land Acquisition Officer to pay the amounts. 6. In the circumstances, the petitioners have been dispossessed of their land over two years back without being paid any compensation therefor. The respondents did not even pay the value of the improvements or 80 per cent of the land value on 16-2-1985 when possession was taken though the law enjoined the Land Acquisition Officer to pay the amounts. 6. In the circumstances, the petitioners have been dispossessed of their land over two years back without being paid any compensation therefor. The respondents are therefore liable to be directed to expedite the proceedings and to pay the compensation due to the petitioners. 7. I therefore dispose of the original petition with the following directions. 8. The 2nd respondent is directed to complete the proceedings initiated by the notification dated 12-2-1985 issued under S.3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the petitioner's lands within a period of four months from today and to pass the award envisaged under S.12 fixing the amount of compensation due to the respective petitioners in respect of the lands acquired from them. The 3rd respondent will also make arrangements to pay the amount of compensation due to the respective petitioners pursuant to the award within a period of one month from the date of passing of the award. Needless to say that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the award they will be at liberty to take appropriate steps to have the matter referred to court in accordance with law. The Original Petit ice is disposed of as above. Issue photo copy of this judgment on usual terms.