Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner herein is a Housing Co-operative Society which has prayed for an appropriate writ/direction or order quashing the government Notification dated 16th March.1983, published in the District gazette on 18th March 1983 (Annexure-1) withdrawing from the acquisition of land measuring 1.57 acres consisting of several plots situate in Mohalla-Sheikhpura in the district of Patna, which was earlier notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquicsitipn was made for the benefit of the petitioner-Society for providing building sites to its members. By the impugned notification the government has withdrawn from the acquisition of only 1.57 acres of land out of total area of 54.75 acres earlier notified and declared under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The main ground on which the impugned notification is challenged is that the withdrawal of the notification is malafide, and that the same has been done at the instance of respondent Nos.6,8, 10 and 13, who are/were influential persons in the Government of Bihar, and who were interested in the lands being released, so that they could purchase the lands in question. The impugned notification has been challenged on other grounds as well. 2. The facts, not in dispute, are that the petitioner-Society was registered as a Housing Co-operative Society in the year 1972 under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Society Act, 1948. With a view to alot building sites to its members, on 12-9-1974 the petitioner-Society applied to the Director of Land Acquisition, Bihar, Patna, for acquisition of land at its cost. The application of the petitioner-Society was duly recommended. Thereafter on 1-6-1979 a notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition act was issued to individual land owners. Objections under Sec.5-A were invited by the Collector and were considered, and after consideration were rejected by the Collector. A memo of agreement was executed on 9th July, 1980 under Sec.41 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said memo of agreement is Annexure-2 to the writ application. Thereafter the requisite declaration under Sec.6 was notified and publirhed in the District Gazette on 1st September 1980, in relation to 54.75 acres of land (Annexure-3 ). Respondent Nos.15 and 16, who are the owners of land measuring 1.57 acres, subject matter of the instant, writ, applications, applied to the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation on 13-12-1980 vide Annexure-4. Respondent Nos.15 and 16, who are the owners of land measuring 1.57 acres, subject matter of the instant, writ, applications, applied to the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation on 13-12-1980 vide Annexure-4. 3. On 11-8-1981 the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, required the Society to deposit an amount of Rs.70,63,755.78 paise towards the cost of the acquired land measuring 54.75 acres. The petitioner-Society deposited the requisite amount on 1-10-196, and prayed for handing over possession of the land. Respondent Nos.15 and 16 herein, the land owners, made two applications before the Collector on 10-12-1981 and 18-1-1982 (Annexure B and A respectely ). In Annexure-B the aforesaid respondents stated that they had large families to support and they. were earning their livelihood by cultivating the lands which had remained with them on which they had also built their residence. Some time earlier the other lands belonging to these respondents had been acquired by the Government for public purposes If the lands which remained with them were to be acquired, they shall be rendered landless and it will not be possible for them to earn their livelihood, They will not have a home of their own. In these circumstances, it was prayed that the lands in question may be released from acquisition. Similar facts were stated in Afmexure-A in which it was emphasised that in the past their lands, had been acquired for the purpose of Agriculture University and if the remaining lands were also acquired, they will have to face great hardship and they will be left with neither residence nor any means of livelihood. The Collector made an award in the land acquisition proceeding on 20th february, 1982 but this award was in respect of the remaining land, excluding 1.57 acres in respect of which respondent Nos.15 and 16 had made a prayer for release from acquisition. On 24-2-1988 the Collector vide Annexure-B as also Annexuree-C dated 24-2-1982 recommended the case of the aforesaid respondents for sympathetic consideration of the Government. He stated in his recommendation that a local inspection had been done and it was found that the land owners had grown paddy and muassor crops on the said land. The land was irrigated by a tubewell. The plots in questian were on one side of the lands acquired. He stated in his recommendation that a local inspection had been done and it was found that the land owners had grown paddy and muassor crops on the said land. The land was irrigated by a tubewell. The plots in questian were on one side of the lands acquired. It was also stated that in the past vast land belonging to the applicants had been acquired for the purpose of rajendra Agriculture, University and Sastri Nagar Colony. 4. On coming to know of these developments the Secretary of the petitioner-Society drew the attention of the Director, Land Acquisition to the proposal for releasing from acquisition 1.57 acres of land earlier notified. The letter of the Secretary (Annexure-6) mentions the fact that an award had been made by the Collector in respect of the lands notified, except an area of 1.57 acres which he, perhaps, intended to release from acquisition for reasons best known to him. He complained that though the petitioner society has deposited the entire cost of the land measuring 54.75 acres, there was still a move to release a portion of the acquired land. It was pointed out that while on the one hand there was a a proposal to release a portion of the land from acquisition, permission had been granted to someone to purchase the same land. An objection was raised that an application for releasing a part of the land could not be entertained at this late stage, particularly when all objections had been rejected under Sec.5-A of the Act. This was being done by the district authorities in order to suit their own interest. If any portion of the land notified was released, that would go against the cause of justice as well as result in breach of agreement executed under Sec.41 of the Act. 5. While the matter was still under consideration, it appears that out of 1.57 acres, respondents Nos.15 and 16 sold a few small plots of land to different persons between 22nd March and 24th March, 1982. It appears from Annexure-7 dated 7th April, 1982 that on receipt of the recommendation of the Collector, the Joint Secretary in the Department of Revenue and Land reforms wrote to the Collector on 7-4-1982 making further enquiries. It appears from Annexure-7 dated 7th April, 1982 that on receipt of the recommendation of the Collector, the Joint Secretary in the Department of Revenue and Land reforms wrote to the Collector on 7-4-1982 making further enquiries. He asked for a copy of the representation made by the applicants and also wanted to know whether the applicant still retained any land which had not been acquired. An enquiry was made as to whether the applicants had represented after the publication of the notification as also whether the land was being used for agricultural purposes and if so the justification f6r their release. He further enquired as to the effect that the release of the land may have on the project of the petitioner-Society, and whether it was practicable to acquire other plots nearby. The Collector. Patna , submitted a report on 16th April, 1982, which is annexure-D to the counter-affidavit of respondents Nos.1 to 5. This was in response to the queries made by the Joint Secretary as also the representation made by the petitioner-Society on 26-2-1982. The Collector reiterated that the applicants (respondent Nos.15 and 16) will be left with no land if the land measuring 1.57 acres was acquired. The applicants also did not hold any land beyond the ceiling limit under the Urban Ceiling Act. Since the lands were situated on one side of the lands acquired, their release would not adversely affect the project of the society. It was pointed out that the petitioner-Society proposed to allot 4000 sq. feet of land to each of its members, but the Housing Board was alloting plots measuring approximately 2000 sq. feet to the members of middle income group. The policy of the Government has also been that for the purpose of any housing Project land should not be acquired as to render weaker sections homeless on account of stich acquisition. The applicants also belongied to backward class. He, therefore, justified the recommendation made by him earlier. 6. feet to the members of middle income group. The policy of the Government has also been that for the purpose of any housing Project land should not be acquired as to render weaker sections homeless on account of stich acquisition. The applicants also belongied to backward class. He, therefore, justified the recommendation made by him earlier. 6. The petitioner-Society was given possession of the land acquired on 24-4-1982, but possession of land measuring 1.57 acres in respect of which a proposal for withdrawal from acquisition was under consideration was not given in these circumstances on 15-3-1983 the petitioner-Societv again represented to the Director Land Acquisition, and brought to his notice that out of the portion of the land not acquired, respondent Nos.15 and 16 had sold certain portions to respondent No.6 and others. The representation has been annexed as Annexure-9. A copy of the aforesaid representation was also submitted to the Chief Minister for necessary action. From Annexure-10 it appears that the tnen Chief Minister directed the Director, Land Acquisition to stay further proceeding, and to put up the file with his comments. The endorsement of the Chief Minister is dlated 19th march, 1983. The case of the petitioner is that the Special Secretary to the chief Minister required the Commissioner and Secretary Department of revenue and Land Reforms to send the file forthwith to the Chief Minister, as per the order of the Chief Minister dated 19th March, 1983. 7. It appears that even before the matter was taken to the Chief Minister, the Joint Secretary in the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms had asked the Collector to prepare a draft notification under Sec.48 of the land Acquisition Act for the release of the land in question. The said notification was thereafter duly published in the Bihar Gazette on 18th march, 1983, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ application. 8. The petitioner in support of his application has urged that the impugned notification has been issued malafide with a view to benefit respondent Nos.6, 8, 10 and 13. They were influential officers of the Government of Bihar and were vitally interested in getting the land released so that they could purchase portions of the land so released. 8. The petitioner in support of his application has urged that the impugned notification has been issued malafide with a view to benefit respondent Nos.6, 8, 10 and 13. They were influential officers of the Government of Bihar and were vitally interested in getting the land released so that they could purchase portions of the land so released. It was then submitted that the Government having entered into a statutory agreement under Sec.41 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was bound by the said agreement and could withdraw from acquisition only on the grounds specified in Clause 5 of the agreement. Thirdly, it was submitted that Sec.48 was not a substitute for section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. If all objections had been considered by the Collector and rejected under Sec.5-A of the Act, the same or similar objections could not be considered and taken into account by the government for the purpose of withdrawing from acquisition under Sec.48 of the Act. It was lastly submitted that if an appropriate writ was issued quashing the impugned notification, an award could well be made by the Collector even now, having regard to the fact that a limited order of stay was operating during the pendency of the writ petition, which period has to be excluded for the purpose of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended. 9. On behalf of the State it was urged that the Government has issued the impugned notification bona fide having regard to the hardship that would have been caused to respondent nos.15 and 16, if the lands were acquired. The withdrawal from acquisition with the Government policy not to render a member of the weaker section homeless and landless by reason of such acquisition. The Government had taken into account relevant facts and circumstances, and after proper appreciation of the matter at all levels, the impugned notification had been issued. No question of mala fide was involved. It further contended that the right of the Government to withdraw from acquisition is neither controlled by clause 5 of the statutory agreement executed under Secction 41 of the act nor by section 5-A of the Act. It was also contended that in view of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector could not make an award any more, in view of the lapse of time. It was also contended that in view of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector could not make an award any more, in view of the lapse of time. If at all, the land had to be acquired afresh, which the Government in view of its declared policy, would not be justified in acquiring. 10. Counsel for respondent nos.15 and 16 submitted that the allegation of mala fide and colourable exercise of power etc. vitiating the action was not established. There was neither any pleading on the subject nor was there any material to justify the vague and bald allegation made in the writ petition. Even accepting the allegations without critical scrutiny, they were not con nected with the decision making authority, namely, Government. So far as respondent nos.6, 8, 11 and 13 are concerned, they had no role to play either in the acquisition of lands or in their release. He submitted that the Government was at liberty to withdraw from acquisition. Sec.48 employed a language with wide amplitude and the power to withdraw from acquisition under Sec.48 of the Act was not controlled by Sec.5-A or Sec.41 of the Act. In the instant case the impugned notification had been issued bona fide, and after proper appreciation of the facts and on considerations which were relevant. He further submitted that even if it was assumed that the impugned notification was bad, this Court should not exercise its discretion by issuing a writ, because the writ shall be a futile writ. In any event the petitioner was not entitled to a discretionary remedy because the real motive and object of the petitioner was to make money. He submitted that the plea of the petitioner-Society that by exclusion of 1.57 acres from the area acquired, several members would be deprived of land. was not tenable. The petitioner-Society had enrolled several new members from time to time, and there were today many more members for whose benefit the requisition was made originally. Moreover, the released land was located on one side of the acquired lands and the petitioner-Society had falsely stated that it was in the middle of the acquired lands, and its location was such that it would adversely affect the project of the petitioner-Society. He also wanted this Court to dismiss the writ petition since the same was fatally defective for non-joinder of necessary party. He also wanted this Court to dismiss the writ petition since the same was fatally defective for non-joinder of necessary party. It was submitted that respondent no.14, who had beep made a party in the writ petition was dead. yet he was made a party in this writ petition, this Court should not encourage such litigants who deliberately made false statement before this Court. 11. I shall first consider the plea of mala fide urged on behalf of the petitioner. It is well-settled in administrative law that the plea of mala fide must be clearly alleged and strictly proved. If the respondents are able to give a logical and reasonable explanation for the action, the Court must not infer mala fide. In the instant case particularly, such an inference should not be drawn because the Collector, who initiated the proposal for release of the land in question and who supported his recommendation at different stages, has not been made a party in the writ application. The petitioner has not alleged mala fide against the Collector nor has it alleged mala fide either against the Director of Land Acquisition or the Minister for Revenue or the Chief minister who had occasion to see the file and take decision 12. In its writ petition the petitioner has referred to the events leading to the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition act and to the execution of the agreement and payment of price by the petitioner-Society. Thereafter in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition it has stated that under "a fraudulent contrivance engineered by the respondent no.6 the then Additional District Magistrate, respondent no.18, the then Land acquisition Officer, Respondent no.13, the then Additional Collector-incharge-Urban Land Ceiling, Respondent no.16, the then Additional District Land acquisition Officer, the land-holders (respondent nos.14 to 16) made an application to the District Collector for withdrawal of their land measuring 1.57 acres on 10-12-1981 and 18-1-1982, long after the disposal of the objections against the proposed acquisition". In paragraph no.13 it has referred to the representation made by the land owners and in paragraph no.14 it has been mentioned that in anticipation of grant of withdrawal by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, the Collector refrained from making the award in respect of 1.57 acres of land, which he was bound to make under the provisions of the Act. In paragraph no.15 it has been stated, ". . . whereas on the one hand, respondent nos.14 to 16 applied for release of their lands pretending that the lands in question are agricultural and only source of their livelihood ; on the other hand, they started taking steps in collusion with respondents 6 to 13 for selling the lands on higher price and ultimately they sold portions of the lands and they are in process of selling the entire 1.57 acres of and to the immense prejudice to the petitioner. In paragraph no.16 it has been stated that respondent nos.14 to 16 have purported to sell and respondent nos.6,8,10 and 13 have acquired lands comprised within the area corresponding to 1.57 acres exempted under the impugned notification, In paragraph no.17 of the writ petition the petitioner has referred to its representation made on 26-2-1982 to the Director, Land acquisition, Bihar, Patna. In paragraph no.18 the petitioner has referred to its representation made on 21-1-1982 to the Collector, Patna objecting to the application made by respondent no.15 for permission to sell a portion of the land. There is no allegation of mala fide in the other paragraphs of the writ application, except that in paragraph no.24 it has been stated that the impugned notification exempting the land in question from acquisition was published in the gazette so hurriedly that within a period of five days from the orders of the Department, the notification was published in the official gazette. In paragraph no.29 it has been stated that the exercise of power by the State of Bihar under Sec.48 of the Act is colourable and arbitrary, and the withdrawal has been made without any valid reason. In paragraph nos.30 and 31 it has been stated that the withdrawal of the aforesaid land from acquisition is mala fide and has been made only with a view to serve the ends of the interested public officers and to defeat the public purpose at their instance. Further, the withdrawal of the aforesaid 1.57 acres of land is repugnant to and subversive of the scheme of the Act and the respondents have acted arbitrarily in fraudulent exercise of powers. 13. A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 30th June, 1983. Further, the withdrawal of the aforesaid 1.57 acres of land is repugnant to and subversive of the scheme of the Act and the respondents have acted arbitrarily in fraudulent exercise of powers. 13. A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 30th June, 1983. In paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit it is stated that respondent nos.14 to 16, the land holders, on the one hand were making the application for release of the land in question for their own agricultural use, on the other hand, they have sold 9 decimals of land in plot no.54 of Khata no.277 to Sri Gyanu Singh (respondent no.6), at present additional District Magistrate, Law and Order, Patna, who had also been the president of Bihar Civil Services Association at the time of purchase of land. In paragraph no.3 it is stated that Sri S. N. Dubey, respondent no.13, the then Additional District Magistrate, Urban Land Ceiling, Patna, purchased 13 decimals of land in the name of his brother-in-law, namely, Hemkant dubey, respondent no.7, the then Commissioner of Department of Education. In paragraph no, 4 it is stated that Sri Ram Sakal Singh, respondent no.8, the then District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, on whose preliminary enquiry and report, the process for withdrawal was initiated, purchased 11 1/3 decimals of lands in the name of Smt. Meera Devi, respondent no.9. the married daughter of the aforesaid Ram Sakal Singh, respondent no.8. Similarly, it has been stated in paragraph no.5 that Sri Ram Binod Singh, respondent no.10, Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, purchased 11 1/3 decimals of land in the name of Ramchandra Thakur, respondent no.11, who is the brother-in-law of the aforesaid Sri Ram Binod Singh (respondent no.10 ). It is then stated in paragraph no.6 that respondent nos.14 to 16 have also sold 2 1/3 decimals of land to one Gita Devi (respondent. no.12 ). 14. From the pleadings in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit it would be evident that the allegation of mala fide is directed against respondent nos.6.8.10 and 13 who are said to be influential officers who had purchased plots of land out of the land proposed to be released. There is no averment in the writ petition or the supplementary affidavit as what these respondents did with a view to secure an illegal order for the release from acquisition of the land in question. There is no averment in the writ petition or the supplementary affidavit as what these respondents did with a view to secure an illegal order for the release from acquisition of the land in question. From the, mere fact that these respondents purchased portions of the land from the land owners (respondent nos.14 to 16) it was sought to be inferred that the notification releasing the land had been issued mala fide with a view to betnefit these respondents. The averments in paragraph nos.29, 30 and 31 are all general and vague in nature, and except for the allegations made, no facts have been pleaded to support these allegations. 15. Respondent nos.6, 8, 10 and 13 have filed their counter-affidavits. Respondent no.6 has admitted the fact that he had purchased a small plot of land from respondent nos.14 to 16, and he has fully explained the circumstances in which he purchased that plot of land. He has stated that he was in Government service, and retired as Additional District Magistrate-Patna. He had entered into an agreement with respondent nos.14 and 16 for purchase of a piece of land measuring 9 decimals. On the basis of the aforesaid agreement he applied to the State Government for purchase of the land in question which was granted on 26th November, 1981. Neither respondent no.6 nor his wife or dependant own or possess any land or building within the Patna Municipal Area. The vendor of respondent no.6 also made an application to the competent authority for permission to sell the land as required under the Urban Land Ceil ing act. The requisite permission was granted on 4th February, 1982. Thereafter, a registered deed of sale was executed on 22nd March, 1982. Respondent no.6 thereafter came in possession of the land in question, and after getting a buildiag plan sanctioned by the Patna Regional Development authority, constructed a residential house thereon after obtaining a housing loan from the Housing Federation. Respondent no.6 has categorically stated that he was posted as (Additional District Magistrate, In-charge, Law and Order in Patna. He had nothing to do with land acquisition or revenue matters. The allegations made against him are false. He has further stated that since possession of the land in question was not handed over to the Government, the Government was within its right to release the land from acquisition under Sec.48 of the Land Acquisition Act. He had nothing to do with land acquisition or revenue matters. The allegations made against him are false. He has further stated that since possession of the land in question was not handed over to the Government, the Government was within its right to release the land from acquisition under Sec.48 of the Land Acquisition Act. He categorically denied the allegation made in paragraph no 12 of the writ application and stated that it was false to allege that this respondent engineered a fraudulent contrivance with respondent nos.8, 10 and 13 and respondent nos.14 to 16. He challenged the petitioners to produce evidence before the Court to prove the aforesaid allegations. Since he had nothing to do with land acquisition and revenue matters and he was simply in-charge of law and order, there was no question of his having any say in such matters he had purchased the land in normal course after following the normal procedure. It is not necessary to refer to the other averments in the counter-affidavit of respondent no.6 wherein he has justified the action of the Government in releasing the land from acquisition. 16. Respondent no.8, Ram Sakal Singh, in his counter-afidavit stated that the allegations made against him in paragraph 12 of the writ application were totally incorrect and misleading and had been made" only to presudice this Court. He stated that as a District Land Acquisition Officer he only performed his normal official duties in accordance with law and he had never acted ia violation of the rules or Government instructions. Any application filed by respondent nos.14 to 16 was dealt with by him in normal course. He further stated that he had no interest in the land in question, and it was incorrect to say that respondent nos.14 to 16 were acting in collusion with him. He stated that he had no concern with respondent nos.14 to 16. He further denied that he ever purchased any land through any sale deed. The allegation that he had purchased a piece of land from respondent nos.14 to 16 was denied as totally false and baseless. 17. Respondent no.9, Smt. Meera Sinha, who is sais to be the daughter of respondent no.8 also filed a counter-affidavit stating that her husband is an Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Central Water Commission, Government of India. She was married in the year 1979. 17. Respondent no.9, Smt. Meera Sinha, who is sais to be the daughter of respondent no.8 also filed a counter-affidavit stating that her husband is an Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Central Water Commission, Government of India. She was married in the year 1979. Since she had no land at Patna she purchased 11 1/3 decimals of land from the land owner after paying full consideration for the same and got a sale deed registered in her favour. 18. It would thus appear that respondent no.8 denied having purchased any land from respondent nos.14 to 16. His daughter; respondent no.9 admits that she had purchased a plot of land after paying full consideration. 19. Respondent no.10, Ram Binod Singh, stated that he was posted as Additional District Land Acquisition Officer in the Patna Collectorate between the years 1980 and 1983. At that time there was one District Land acquision Officer, and another Additional District Land Acquisition Officer, apart from the deponent. The District Land Acquisition Officer and the two Additional District land Acquisition Officers dealt with different land acquisition cases as were allotted to them by the Collector of the Patna district. He asserted that while he was functioning as Additional District Land Acquisition Officer, he never dealt with any matter or any file relating to the acquisition of land for the benefit of the petitioner Society. The release of land was ordered by the State Government on the recommendation of the Collector of Patna district and this respondent had absolutely nothing to do with the same. He further asserted that he had not purchased any plot of land from respondent nos.14 to 16 and that allegations made in paragraph nos.12,15, 16 and 30 of the writ application were absolutely false and incorrect. He also denied the statements made in paragraph nos.5 and 7 of the supplementary affidavit. So far as respondent no.11 is concerned, he stated that he purchased a plot of land after negotiating for the same. At that time respondent no.14, the land owner, was posted at Darbhanga, where respondent no.11 was also posted. Respondent no.11 is an established and big agriculturist and his family owns nearly 60 acres of good cultivable and. Respondent no.11 himself paid the consideration money out of his own income and respondent no.10 had nothing to do with the same. 20. At that time respondent no.14, the land owner, was posted at Darbhanga, where respondent no.11 was also posted. Respondent no.11 is an established and big agriculturist and his family owns nearly 60 acres of good cultivable and. Respondent no.11 himself paid the consideration money out of his own income and respondent no.10 had nothing to do with the same. 20. Respondent no.11 also in his counter-affidavit supported respondent no.10 and stated that he has purchased a plot of land from respondent nos.14 and 16 for his own family needs. The land was purchased for the constraction of a residential house at Patna, so that the family could maintain an establishment at Patna to facilitate the education of the children. He further asserted that respondent no.10 had no concern with the land purchased by him. He had personally negotiated for the sale of land with respondent no 14, who was then posted at Darbhanga. He has paid the entire consideration money from his own income. He further stated that apart from the plot of land purchased by him, he did not have any other plot of land apart from his ancestral properties and self acquired agricultural and homestead land in his native village. He categorically denied allegations made in paragraph nos.12,15,16 abd 30 of the writ application and paragraph nos.5 and 7 of the supplementary affidavit. 21. In his counter-affidavit respondent no.13, Sri S. N. Dubey stated that in the years 1981 and 1982 he was posted as Additional District Magistrate, Patna. He had, however, no concern with land acquisition matters which were being dealt with separately and directly by the Collector of Patna district with the aid and assistance of Land Acquisition Officer and the Additional Land Acquisition Officers. While the deponent was functioning as additional District Magistrate, Patna, he had never dealt with any matter or any file relating to acquisition of land for the petitioner-Society. He had not participated either directly or indirectly in any matter or anything done or action taken with regard to the impugned order of release of land of respondent nos.14 to 16. From a perusal of the writ application it was clear that the release of the land was ordered by the State Government on the recommendation of the Collector of Patna district, and the deponent had nothing to do in the matter. From a perusal of the writ application it was clear that the release of the land was ordered by the State Government on the recommendation of the Collector of Patna district, and the deponent had nothing to do in the matter. The deponent further categorically denied that he had purchased any plot of land from respondent nos 14 to 16. He, therefore denied the allegations made in paragraph nos.12, 15, 16 and 50 of the writ petition. He stated that respondent no.7 was an officer of the United Commercial bank in the year 1982; and was now working as Assistant General Manager, hudco, New Delhi. The aforesaid respondent no.7 himself negotiated for purchase of a piece of land from respondent no, 14. Respondent no.7 is himself a man of means wirh sufficient capacity to buy a piece of land for himself, and for construction of a residential house thereon. Respondent no.7 had himself paid the consideration money out of his own income and the deponent had absolutely no concern with the land of respondent no.7. 22. Respondent no.12, Smt. Gita Devi, also filed a counter-affidavit stating that she had purchased a plot of land measuring about 12 dhoors only under a registered deed dated 22nd March, 1982. She was a bonafide purchaser for value and after coming into possession of the land in question she has raised a construction thereon for residential purpose. She had no knowledge of the notifications said to have been issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not necessary to refer to other facts mentioned in the counter-affidavit since it is no ones case that respondent no.12 had anything to do in connection with the release of lands by the Government. 23. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.15 and 16. As observed earlier, respondent no.14 was dead by the time the writ application was filed and, therefore, no counter-affidavit was filed on his behalf. When the respondents took an objection that the writ petition should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party, the petitioner did make an application for substitution of legal representatives of respondent no.14. Notices were issued by this Court and since the notices could not be served upon the legal respresentatives of respondent no.14, the same was effected by substituted service by publishing the notice in a local newspaper. 24. Notices were issued by this Court and since the notices could not be served upon the legal respresentatives of respondent no.14, the same was effected by substituted service by publishing the notice in a local newspaper. 24. In their counter-affidavit also respondent nos.15 and 16 raised an objection that this writ petition could not be allowed in view of the fact that the petitioner had made respondent no.14 a party respondent who was dead to the knowledge of the petitioner. it was submitted that the writ petition has abated as a whole. 25. On merit these respondents stated that they were members of a big joint family which owned two acres of land in the city of Patna out of which 157 acres of land was the subject matter of the writ application. According to these respondents there were 14 adult members in the family, each entitled to an unit of land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The members of the family of these respondents were, therefore, entitled to retain five acres of land. It was stated that on account of premature death of respondent no.14, in the yrar 1982 the family was faced with serious financial difficulties as they had, no other substantial means of income. The lands located in Mohalla Shekhpura had not lost their agricultural value in the years 1979 and 1980, and the same was being used for agricultural purposes with substantial income from the sale of vegetables which were grown over the land in question. There was also a mango orchard by the side of the land in question which also gave some income to these respondents. Irrigation facility was available since there was a State Tubewell located on the land. From the sale of portions of the land in question, major family expenses on social functions, such as marriages, Shradh and other family commitments including medical treatment etc. were being met. In these circumstances, when these respondents came to know that the lands were sought to be acquired for the purpose of the petitioner-Society, they applied to the Collector as well as to the State government for release of the land in question. were being met. In these circumstances, when these respondents came to know that the lands were sought to be acquired for the purpose of the petitioner-Society, they applied to the Collector as well as to the State government for release of the land in question. Apart from the fact that the family members of these respondents apprehended loss of means of livelihood on account of the proposed acquisition, it was further stressed on their behalf that since ten acres of their land had been acquired in the past for various projects, they should be spared at least from the present acquisition so that they were not rendered homeless. The applications filed by these respondents received due consideration and after an enquiry a report was submitted by the Collector, Patna district. The state Government considered the matter and after complete examination of the case of these respondents, an order of release of the land was passed. Though the petitioner had made allegations against some of the supervisory officers of the district in connection with the release order passed by the government, it could not be denied that the order for release of the land was passed by the State Government upon a full and complete examination of the matter in the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, as also after clear orders were obtained from the Revenue Minister. The petitioner had not attributed any malice against the Minister concerned or the Revenue and Land Reforms Department. The allegation of malice has, therefore, no substance. It was further submitted that even if the impugned notification was quashed, the petitioner-Society cannot get the benefit of the land in question for two reasons. Firstly, there has been a significant amendment to the Land acquisition Act, and in view of the provision of sections 6 and 11 of the Act, as amended in 1984, an award under section 11 of the Act cannot be passed after such lapse of time. Secondly, the State Government has taken a decision on 21st April, 1987 that the State Government shall not acquire land for private Co-operative societies. In view of the policy of the Government there is no likelihood of fresh acquisition proceeding being initiated for the benefit of the petitioner-Spciety, even if the impugned notification is quashed. Secondly, the State Government has taken a decision on 21st April, 1987 that the State Government shall not acquire land for private Co-operative societies. In view of the policy of the Government there is no likelihood of fresh acquisition proceeding being initiated for the benefit of the petitioner-Spciety, even if the impugned notification is quashed. In this connection the deponent has referred to the case of Vijoy Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti in which case even after the deposit of rupees two crores and sixty seven lakhs for the acquisition of 128 acres of land, the State Government has withdrawn from the acquisition of those lands. The deponent has referred to similar orders in the case of other private Co-operative Societies. 26 These respondents have also relied upon the circulars issued from time to time by the Government of Bihar relating to land acquisition. These circulars lay down the policy that the lands may be released or proposals or acquisition may be dropped, if the persons affected belonged to the weaker sections of society and would be rendered landless on account of the proposed acquisition. This has been reiterated from time, to time, and is the established governmeat policy, if, therefore, the Government finds that on account of acquisition of land, persons belonging to weaker sections of the society shall become homeless, it would be perfectly justified in passing, an order withdrawing from the acquision under section 48 of the Act. The respondent nos.14 to 16, also belonged to backward class and, therefore, come within the ambit of aforesaid executive instruction. These respondents have also pointed out the practice prevalent in this state: All Co-operative Societies get land at a very nominal rate and sell them at exorbitant rates to its members resulting in monetary benefit to the office beaters of the Society. At the time of making the requisition an inflated membership of the Society is disclosed so that much more land than what is necessary is made available to the Society. In the instant case as well the petitioner-Society when it filed a requisition for land in the year 1966-67 stated its membership to be 381. However, after possession of 52 acres of land was given to the petitioner-Spciety, its membership, swelled, beyond 500 and lands were sold at exorbitant rates. In the instant case as well the petitioner-Society when it filed a requisition for land in the year 1966-67 stated its membership to be 381. However, after possession of 52 acres of land was given to the petitioner-Spciety, its membership, swelled, beyond 500 and lands were sold at exorbitant rates. It was stated that the petitioner-Society has claimed in the writ application, that if the lands in question were not released it would run short of land and will not be able to allot plots to 40 of its members. Sale deeds have been executed by the. Society even in the year 1990. In fact, a member with membership no.502 has already been allotted a plot of land. It is, therefore, the case of these respondents that though the petitioner society is making a grievance about the non-availability of sufficient area of land for its members, it has always enrolled new members to whom the plots have bern allotted. The petitioner-Society has also allotted plots to persons who already possessed houses in Patna, and some members, who have been allotted land by the petitioner Society, are also members of other Housing co-operative Societies where they had taken plots in the name of their wives, minor children etc. A few such examples have been mentioned in paragraph no.19 of the counter-affidavit. These respondents have raised various other objections to the validity of the acquisition itself. It is not necessary for me to go into those questions in this writ application, 27. With regard to the sale of land by these respondents, it had been stated that a daughter of respondent no.14 was to get married in the month of March, 1992. In view of the pressing need for money the respondents had to sell portions of the land in question in a bonafide manner after following the regular procedure. These respondents were not impressed or influenced by the official status of respondent nos.6,8, 10 and 13 nor any help for release of the land was solicited or obtained from them. Moreover, the respondents did not execute any sale deed in favour of respondent nos.8, 10 and 13. It has been stated that the five sale deeds related to.47 acres of land out of 1.57 acres of land. Moreover, the respondents did not execute any sale deed in favour of respondent nos.8, 10 and 13. It has been stated that the five sale deeds related to.47 acres of land out of 1.57 acres of land. They have further supported the report of the Collector that if the proposed acquisition took place; these respondents and their family members would have been rendered landless. This apart, a major portion of lands owned by these respondents had been acquired earlier for public purposes. If the remaining 1 ands were also acquired, these respondents would have been rendered homeless and landless and without any means of earning livelihood. It is further denied that the lands of these respondents were in the midst of the area under acquisition. On the contrary, it is stated that their lands were on one side, and would not in any manner adversely affect the development plan of the petitioner-Society, it is not necessary to refer to other averments in the counter-affidavit which relate to the manner in which the membership of the petitioner-Society has been swelling from time to time. 28. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and its authorities (respondent nos.1 to 3 ). Tn the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been asserted that the order of withdrawal from acquisition has been passed by the State Government upon full consideration of the matter. The counter-affidavit refers to the applications made by respondent nos.14 to 16 setting out the relevant facts and impressing upon the Government the need to withdraw from acquisition since the proposed acquisition would render those respondents landless and homeless. Earlier, lands belonging to respondent nos.14 to 16 had been - acquired by the Government, and if the remaining portion was also acquired, it would seriously and adversely affect respondent nos.14 to 16 who belonged to a backward class. These applications were considered by a Collector of the Patna district, and he forwarded those applications to the Government for consideration with his recommendation. The Collector by his letter dated 24th February, 1982 had sent a proposal to the State Government requesting it to consider the applications filed by respondent nos, 14 to 16 for release of their land: It has referred to the recommendation made by the District Magisirate and the grounds mentioned therein. The Collector by his letter dated 24th February, 1982 had sent a proposal to the State Government requesting it to consider the applications filed by respondent nos, 14 to 16 for release of their land: It has referred to the recommendation made by the District Magisirate and the grounds mentioned therein. Upon receipt of the aforesaid recommendation of the Collector the State government did not straightway pass an order under section 48 of the Act. The matter was fully examined in the light of the recommendation of the collector. The petitioner-Society had also filed two application both on 26th February.1982-one before the Chief Minister and the other before the director, Land Acquisition. The matter was referred by the Chief Ministers secretariat to the Land Reforms Commissioner. Thereafter the Revenue Department upon receipt of the said representations sent a copy of both of them to the Collector of Patna district under covering letter dated 7th April, 1982 directing that the matters should be enquired into and a report should be submitted to the State Government. The Collector made his own enquiry and submitted a report to the State government on 16th April, 1982. The Collector recorded his reasons for recommending the release of the land in question from acquisition. He had found that respondent nos.14 to 16 would be rendered landless if the lands were acquired. He has also referred to instances where the State Government had exercised its power under section 48 of the Act even after the amount had been deposited by the bihar State Housing Board. It was also stated in the report that the lands did not come within the ambit of Urban Land Ceiling Act. He had also opined that the release of the land of respondent nos.14 to 16 would not in any way adversely affect the interest of the petitioner-Society, since those plots of land, for which prayer for release had been made, were situated on the boundary of the lands under acquisition. The Collector had also explained that the scheme of the petitioner-Society to allot plots with an area of 4000 sq. feet each was not reasonable, as the Housing Board was itself allotting plots with an area of 2000 sq. feet. He had reiterated the Governmental policy that by acquisition of land, persons belonging to weaker sections should not be rendered homeless and landless. feet each was not reasonable, as the Housing Board was itself allotting plots with an area of 2000 sq. feet. He had reiterated the Governmental policy that by acquisition of land, persons belonging to weaker sections should not be rendered homeless and landless. Thereafter, the Government sought for further clarifications from the Collector. After the report of the Collector was received, a further enquiry was made through the Additional Collector, Patna, who supported the recommendation of the Collector. The matter was again examined in the light of the aforesaid reports by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department along with other materials available in the relevant file. The authorities of the Revenue and Land reforms Department took a decision to release the land of respondent nos.14 to 16 on the following grounds : (a) The 1.57 acres of land of the respondent nos.14 to 16 were on the boundary of the proposed chunk of land under acquisition for the petitioner Society and as such its project of allotment of sites for house construction was not going to be adversely affected by the release of the land of respondent nos.14 to 16. (b) The family members of the respondent nos.14 to 16 who were earlier also subjected to acquisition of their land for the purpose of Rajendra Agriculture University and Shastrinagar Housing colony by the State Government, were left with only 1.57 acres of land which was sufficient for their big family. (c) The ten adult co-sharers and legal successors of respondent nos.14 to 16, all of whom were entitled for their shares had been left with only 15 decimals land for each of them which was insufficient for their respectively big family. (d) The respondent nos.14 to 16 were not covered within the ambit of Urban Land Ceiling Act, considering the total land of 1.57 acres due to the admissible ceiling limit under the aforesaid Act. (e) The respondents no.14 to 16 belonged to down trodden and backward class of society for whom the State Government had always maintained compassionate attitude and its policy had been to help them in their housing project. (f) 52.1265 acres of land was found to be sufficient for its 381 members of the petitioner Society as indicated in its requisition filed at the time of initiating the land acquisition proceedings. (f) 52.1265 acres of land was found to be sufficient for its 381 members of the petitioner Society as indicated in its requisition filed at the time of initiating the land acquisition proceedings. (g) Based on the yardstick of Housing Board allotment of 2000 square feet of land for each member of the petitioner Society was found to be sufficient and the proposed distribution of 4000 square feet of land to each of the members was to be excessive. The Housing board in Bihar was allotting only 2000 square feet of land to the members of Middle Income Group and 4000 square feet was being allotted by the Housing Board to High Income Group. It was also considered that barring a few members of the petitioner society, almost all of them were of middle income group and thus 52.1265 acres of land was sufficient for its 381 members. (h) The petitioner society, if need be for more land, could approach the State Government for acquisition for its members in second phase, as had been done at Ranchi where also land was acquired in favour of A. G. Housing Construction Co-operative society in two instalments. (i) The possession of land of respondent nos.14 to 16 was not handed over to the petitioner Society and as such the State Government was competent to pass an order of release Of their land in exercise of power under Sec.58 of the Land Acquisition Act. 29. It was, therefore, submitted that the matter was fully considered by the Government, and after considering every aspect of the matter the government decided to release the land from acquisition. The matter was placed before the Cabinet Minister In-charge whose approval was obtained on 9th March, 1983. The decision to release the land was taken in a bonafide manner in accordance with the procedure envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act and the rules of executive business. The consideration of the matter consumed a period of more than one year. In the decision making process, the representations of the petitioner-Society were also taken into account. Reference has been made to the decision of the State Government dated 21st April, 1987 that land shall not be acquired for Private Co-operative Societies and Khas Mahal land shall also not be given to such Societies. In the decision making process, the representations of the petitioner-Society were also taken into account. Reference has been made to the decision of the State Government dated 21st April, 1987 that land shall not be acquired for Private Co-operative Societies and Khas Mahal land shall also not be given to such Societies. In view of this policy, after 21st April, 1987 the State Government will not acquire land for Private Co-operative Societies. Many of the proceedings pending have been dropped by the State Government even after the publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Land acquisition Act. 30. The State has further contended that the allegations made in paragraph. no.12 of the writ petition are absolutely incorrect as there is nothing on the record of the State Government to establish that respondent nos.6, 8, 10 and 13 have made any recommendation to the State Government for release of the land in favour of respondent nos.14 to 16. The proposal for release of the land for acquisition was made by Sri k. A. H. Subramaniam, Collector of the district, against whom no allegation of malice has been attributed by the petitioner-Society. Before the order was passed under section 48 of the Act, in none of the representations had the petitioner-Society made any allegation against respondent nos.6, 8, 10 and 13. The allegation that the notification was published with undue haste has also been denied. It is stated in paragraph no.24 of the counter-affidavit that the draft notification for release was asked for by the Revenue and Land refyrms Department on 14th March, 1983, and after receipt of the said draft the same was finally prepared and signed in the Department on 16th March, 1983. Thereafter it was published in the District Gazette on 18th March, 1933. 31. Several rejoinders have been filed by the parties, but it is not necessary to refer to them since the parties have reiterated their earlier stand in these rejoinders as well. 32. I have deliberately referred to the pleading in detail since it was urged at the threshold that there is no proper pleading nor is there any material, to support the vague plea of mala fide. The objection has substance and must be accepted. 32. I have deliberately referred to the pleading in detail since it was urged at the threshold that there is no proper pleading nor is there any material, to support the vague plea of mala fide. The objection has substance and must be accepted. Though there is no allegation that respondent nos.6, 8, 10 and 13 acted in collusion with respondent nos.14 to 16, no particulars have been stated as to what exactly they did with a view to provide an illegal order under section 48 of the Act. As a matter of fact, apart from respondent no.6, the other respondents have denied to have purchased any land from respondent nos.14 to 16. All of them have denied that they had any role to play in their official capacity in regard to the issuance of the notification under section 48 of the Act. There is nothing on record to show that respondent nos.6, 8,10,and 13 were in a position to influence the mind of the authorities that be, who were ultimately to take a decision for the release of the land from acquisition. These four officers were the subordinates of the Collector of the district. It was the Collector of the District who recommended to the State Government that the land in question be released from acquisition. He gave his reasons in support thereof. The matter was thereafter considered by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms. The Director land Acquisition also considered the matter and asked for further report from the Collector and the Additional Collector. The matter was also brought to the notice of the Chief Minister by the petitioner itself. The Chief Minister had also occasion to consider the matter as the file was placed before him. It appears that for over a year the matter was being considered and various reports were called for. The decision was ultimately taken at the Government level and had the approval of the Cabinet Minister in these facts it is difficult to understand what role respondent nos.6, 8, 10 and 13 had played in the matter. Indeed no specific role has been assigned to them, and all that is vaguely stated is that they had, perhaps, abused or misused their official position. On such vague allegation unsupported by cogent material, a finding of mala fide in fact cannot be recorded. Indeed no specific role has been assigned to them, and all that is vaguely stated is that they had, perhaps, abused or misused their official position. On such vague allegation unsupported by cogent material, a finding of mala fide in fact cannot be recorded. No allegation has been made against the Collector of the District, nor has any allegation been made against the director, Land Acquisition, or the Minister concerned or the Chief Minister in the process of taking a decision these were the authorities who had dealt with the matter. In any event, there is no material to substantiate the suspicion that respondent nos.6, 8, 10 and 13 had taken any interest in the matter, and had or were in a position to influence the mind of the authorities concerned. 33. Much cannot be made of the fact that respondent no.6 or the relatives of respondent nos.8, 10 and 13 had purchased portions of the land in question. It may be that they had knowledge of the fact that the matter was being considered for release of the land in question. It may be that in anticipation of such release the parties approached the land owners for sale of the ptots in question. This by itself will not establish the plea of mala fide because this has no connection with the decision making process. One cannot indulge in speculation, particularly when one is dealing with a plea of mala fide. This Court may not be justified in unduly suspecting that these respondents must have done something. In the absence of any material on record, it would be difficult to hold that the decision to release the land from acquisition was a decision tainted with malice. In fact, on the other hand, the record discloses that the matter was considered at great length at different levels and at different times. The matter remained under consideration for over a year, and the final decision was taken only after the matter was fully considered by the authorities concerned. I find no evidence of undue haste. 34. The next question that may arise for consideration is as to whether the action is tainted with mala fide in law. Though this was not urged before me, I have examined the matter from that angle as well to satisfy myself that the action of the State Government is not illegal. I find no evidence of undue haste. 34. The next question that may arise for consideration is as to whether the action is tainted with mala fide in law. Though this was not urged before me, I have examined the matter from that angle as well to satisfy myself that the action of the State Government is not illegal. In the matter of acquisition of land for Companies etc. it is open to the Government to evolve a policy, because no company can compel the Government to acquire lands for its use, even though that may be considered to be a public purpose. The policy of the Government appears to be that the lands of weaker sections of society should not be acquired, if that renders them homeless and landless. In the instant case the plea of respondent nos.15 and 16 was that their other lands has already been acquired. If the remaining lands were also acquired, they would be rendered landless and homeless. I cannot say that the Governmental policy is unreasonable or arbitrary. In the instant case, for instance, the Government thought that it was not fair to render respondent nos.15 and 16 and their family members homeless and landless with a view to provide homes to the members of the petitioner-Society. The Government was justified in taking this view, and the facts go to support the case of respondent nos.15 and 16, who belonged to backward class. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Governmental policy in this regard is based on extraneous consideration, nor can it be said that the government decision in this case to withdraw from acquisition by issuance the notification under Sec.48 of the Land Acquisition Act was on extraneous or non-existent considerations The action therefore, cannot be chara cterised as vitiated by malice in law. 35. It was urged before me that the Government having entered into solemn agreement with the petitioner-Society under Sec.41 of the Act, and having issued the necessary notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the act. if was not permissible for the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition of a portion of the lands notified. 35. It was urged before me that the Government having entered into solemn agreement with the petitioner-Society under Sec.41 of the Act, and having issued the necessary notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the act. if was not permissible for the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition of a portion of the lands notified. Being aware of the fact that section 48 employes words of wide amplitude, counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of clause 5 of the memorandum of agreement entered into by and between the petitioner-Society and the Government, the Government could not withdraw from the acquisition, except on two grounds enumerated in clause 5 of the memorandum of agreement. Since the argument is based on clause 5 of the memorandum of agreement, the aforesaid clause is reproduced below : "it be at any time or time any part of parts or said land shall be possessed by the State Government for purposes connected with the administration of the state or for other public purposes (of which matter the State Government shall be the sole judge) the society shall on being thereunto required by the State Government transfer to the Government such part or parts of the said land as the Govermment shall specify to be necessary for the purposes aforesaid and in consideration of such transfer, the State Government shall pay to the society a sum proportionate or equal as the case may be to the amount of the compensation awarded under the said Act and paid by the society in respect of the landthe subject of transfer upon the acquistion thereof for the society including the amount awarded in respect thereof under section 23 (2) of the said Act together with the compensation for the building and other structures erected on such part or parts at a valuation to be determined by the Collector of Patna. An appeal from the decision of the Collector of Patna shall lie to the Commissioner of the Patna Division and the decision of the Collector of Patna or where an appeal has been preferred against such decision of the Commissioner determining such valuation as aforesaid, shall be final, conclusive and binding on the society. An appeal from the decision of the Collector of Patna shall lie to the Commissioner of the Patna Division and the decision of the Collector of Patna or where an appeal has been preferred against such decision of the Commissioner determining such valuation as aforesaid, shall be final, conclusive and binding on the society. " It was submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the grounds on which the State Government could withdraw from acquisition were (a) for purposes connected with the administration of the State ; and (b) for other public purposes. I have no hesitation in rejecting the argument. The submission proceeds on the erroneous basis that clause 5 of the agreement deals with or affects the right of the State to withdraw from acquisition under Sec.48 of the Act. Clause 5 envisages that even after the acquisition is completed, it is open to the State Government to require the society to transfer to the Government such part or parts of the land as the state Government shall specify to be necessary for the purposes mentioned in that clause. This presupposes that the land has been transferred in favour of the Society and title vests in the Society. Clause 5 only creates a right in favour of the State Government to require the society to transfer the land in its favour. This is further clarified by the later part of the clause which provides that the State Government shall pay to the society a sum proportionate or equal, as the case may be, to the amount of the compensation awarded under the Act and paid by the Society in respect of the land, the subject of the transfer, including the amount awarded in respect thereof under Sec.23 (2) of the Act. The Society in that event will also be entitled to compensation for the building and other structures created on such part or parts at a valuation to be determined by the Collector. The Society in that event will also be entitled to compensation for the building and other structures created on such part or parts at a valuation to be determined by the Collector. It will thus be seen that clause 5 of the agreement only provides for transfer of the acquired land in favour of the state Government after adequately compensating the society not only for the value of the land transferred but also for any structure erected on such part or parts thereof, in my view, therefore, clause 5 of the Agreement does not in any manner curtail the right of the State Government, which is at liberty under Sec.48 of the Act to withdraw from the acquisition. I find nothing in Sec.48 of the Land Acquisition Act which in any manner limits the power of the State Government to withdraw from acquisition of the land, except that possession of the land notified should not have been taken by the government. Once possession of the land is taken, the only option left to the Government is to reconvey the lands to their original owners. No doubt, the power under Sec.48 of the Act has to be exercised bonafide and on relevant considerations, I have already recorded my finding that the notification issued in the instant case under Sec.48 of the Act is neither vitiated by malice in law nor malice in fact. It has been issued after a full consideration of relevant facts and circumstances, and is consistent with the policy of the Government in such matters. 36. It was lastly submitted that section 48 is not a substitute for section 5-A of the Act, and in this connection reliance was placed upon the judgments, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1593 and AIR 1975 Patna 339. In my view, the aforesaid decisions can be of no avail to the petitioner in the instant case. In air 1966 SC 1593 the question which has arisen in this case, did not arise for consideration at all. In that case the Supreme Court was dealing with a matter relating to issuance of successive notifications under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court found the practice of issuing successive notifications under section 6, after issuance of one notification under section 4, to be unwarranted. In that case the Supreme Court was dealing with a matter relating to issuance of successive notifications under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court found the practice of issuing successive notifications under section 6, after issuance of one notification under section 4, to be unwarranted. Reliance was placed on section 48 of the Act and it was urged that section 48 was the only provision in the Act which dealt with withdrawal from acquisition, and that was the only way in which the Government could withdraw from the acquisition. ynless action was taken under section 48 (1), the notification under section 4 (1) would remain (presumably for ever ). The argument was negatived, and it was held that the Government can always cancel the notifications under sections 4 and 6 by virtue of its power under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, and this power can be exercised before the Government directs the Collector to take action under section 7. Similarly, in AIR 1975 Patna 339 this Court did not hold that once objections had been considered and a notification under section 6 had been published, as required, an action under section 48 of the Act could not be taken. In fact, that was a case in which the Government had invoked the emergency provision, and had excluded the application of section 5-A of the act. Obviously, therefore, the question of section 48 not being a substitute for section 5-A could not arise in that case. On the other hand, counsel for respondent nos.15 and 16 has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme court in the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and others v M/s godrej and Boyce, AIR 1987 SC 2421 . In that case the Supreme Court observed ; "we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in striking down the order under section 48 and compelling the State Government to acquire the lands of the respondent. Under the scheme of the act neither the notification under section 4 nor the declaration under section 6 nor the notice under section 9 is sufficient to divest the original owner of, or other person interested in, the land of his rights therein Sec.16 marks it clear beyond doubt that the title to the land vests in the Government only when posses sion is taken by the Government. Till that point of time the land continues to be with the original owner and he is also, free (except where there is specific legislation to the contrary) to deal with the land just as he likes, although it may be that on account of the pendency of proceedings for acquisition intending pur chasers may be chary of coming near the land. So long as possession is not taken over, the mere fact of a notification under section 4 or declaration under section 6 having been made does not divest the owner of his rights in respect of the land or relieve him of the duty to take care of the land and protect it against encroachments. Again, such a notification does not either confer on the State Government any right to interfere with the ownership or other rights in the land or impose on it any duty to remove encroachments therefrom or in any other way safeguard the interests of the original owner of the land. It is in view of this position, that the owners interests remain unaffected until possession is taken, that section 48 gives a liberty to the State government to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before possession is taken. By such withdrawal no irreparable prejudice is to the owner of the land, and if at all he was suffered anv damage in consequence of the acquisition proceedings or incurred costs in relation thereto, he will be compensated therefor under section 54 (2 ). In this view of the matter, it does not matter even if there is lapse of considerable time, between the original notification and the withdrawal under section 48 as held in trustees of Bai Smarth Jain Shvetamber Murtipujak Gvanodhava trust V/s. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 Guj 107 . It also follows that the State can be permitted to exercise its power of withdrawal unilaterally and no requirement that the owner of the land should be given an opportunity of being heard before doing so should be read into the provision. " in my view, these observations do support the plea of the private respondents that the State Government is at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before possession is taken. " in my view, these observations do support the plea of the private respondents that the State Government is at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before possession is taken. It can take into account relevant facts and on the basis of those facts if a bona fide decision is taken to withdraw from the acquisition, the same cannot be challenged on the ground that such or similar ground could have been considered earlier under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. 36. In view of my findings above, it is not necessary for me to go into the question whether an award can be made now on the basis of the notifications issued in the instant case under section 4 of the Act on 1-7-79 and under section 6 on 1-9-1980 having regard to the passage of time and the provision of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in the year 1984. I may only notice the submission of counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the limited stay operating during the pendency of this writ application will have to be excluded in computing the total period under section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that there was no order of stay passed by this Court, and the only interim order passed by this Court was to the effect that during the pendency of the application, if any change in the physical feature of the land in question was made by any of the respondents, it would be at their risk, and it would not be a relevant factor for consideration at the time of hearing of the writ application. No order appears to have been passed by this Court which had the effect of preventing the Collector from making an award under the provisions of the act. 37 Having found no merit in any of the submissions urged before me on behalf of the petitioner, this writ application is dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Applications dismissed.