JUDGMENT : In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for short) has assailed the validity of the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by the Society in which challenge was made to Notification dated 01.09.2010 issued under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1864 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in respect of land measuring 1 acre and 22 guntas of Sy.No.20/10A. IN order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra. 2. The Society is a housing co-operative society, which has been formed by Indian Telephone Industries. The object of the society is to form layout of residential sites for the benefit of its members. The society made a representation to Government of Karnataka to allot the land for forming the residential layout. A proceeding under the Act were set in motion and a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 28.01.2015 in respect of land measuring 57 acres of different survey numbers of Yellakunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The subject matter of this appeal is land bearing Sy.No.20/10A measuring 1 acre and 20 guntas of the aforesaid village. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 24.01.1986 and an award was passed on 24.08.1987, which was followed by a Notification under Section 16(2) of the Act in respect of land bearing Sy.No.20/10A and 20/10B issued on 26.07.1988. 3. After passing of the award on 09.06.1988 as well as issuance of Notification under Section 16(2) of the Act on 26.07.1988 after a period of 7 years, admittedly, the original owners of the land sold the lands in question vide registered sale deeds dated 07.03.1995. Thereafter a Notification in respect of land bearing Sy.No.20/10A was issued on 18.01.2000. The purchaser of the land had filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.2503-2511/2003 in which prayer was made to restrain the State Government as well as the society from interfering with the possession with their land. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by order dated 28.02.2003 which was affirmed by division bench of this court vide order dated 23.06.2003. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by order dated 28.02.2003 which was affirmed by division bench of this court vide order dated 23.06.2003. Thereafter, the State Government directed the Land Acquisition Officer by a communication dated 31.03.2004 to hand over possession to the society. On 08.07.2004, the Land Acquisition Officer handed over the possession of land in question to the society. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.17495-498/2004 in which quashment of communication dated 31.03.2004 was sought. 4. In the said writ petition, the State Government filed the statement of objections, in which in para 4 it was pleaded that possession of land in question was taken on 15.06.1988 and 29.12.1999 and Notification under Section 16(2) of the Act has been issued on 11.08.1988 and 03.02.2000 and which has been published in the gazette. The aforesaid writ petitions were withdrawn by the owners of the land as well as the subsequent purchaser on the ground that by a Notification dated 01.09.2010, land measuring 1 acre and 22 guntas has been denotified in exercise of powers under Section 48(1) of the Act. The Society thereupon challenged the aforesaid Notification in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 04.12.2010 has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the Society. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the Society submitted that a Notification under Section 16(2) of the Act was issued on 18.01.2000 and the land had vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and therefore, the finding recorded by learned Single Judge that respondents are in possession is perverse. It is further submitted that the power under Section 48(1) of the Act to de-notify the land cannot be exercised after the possession has been handed over to the beneficiary viz., the Society. It is also urged that extraneous reasons were taken in to consideration while exercising the power under Section 48(1) of the Act, which amounts to colorable exercise of powers in the facts of the case. Alternatively, it is submitted that the beneficiary was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before issuance of the impugned Notification dated 01.09.2010 in purported exercise of powers under Section 48(1) of the Act. Alternatively, it is submitted that the beneficiary was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before issuance of the impugned Notification dated 01.09.2010 in purported exercise of powers under Section 48(1) of the Act. It is also contended that notings recorded in the official files by the officer of government at different levels and even the ministers do not become the decision of the government unless the same is acted upon by an order issued in the name of the governor and authenticated in the manner provided under Article 166(2) of the Constitution of India and communicated to affected persons. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MOHANLAL AND OTHRS', SLP NO.9036-9038/2016 AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS DECIDED ON 06.03.2020, 'MANDIR SHREE SITARAMJI VS. LAND ACQUISTION COLLECTOR ANDOTHERS', AIR 2005 SC 3581 , 'KN ASWATHNARAYANA SHETTY VS. STATE OF KARNATIKA AND OTHERS', (2014) 15 SCC 394 , 'VINAYAK HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., VS. STATE OF KARNTAKA AND OTHERS', AIR 2009 SC 4473, 'PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELKOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. VISHNUDEV CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND OTHERS', (2018) 8 SCC 215 , 'LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT', AIR 1998 SC 1608 , and 'STATE GOVERNMENT HOUSELESS HARIJAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', AIR 2001 SC 437 . 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 has produced the original recorded for our perusal and has submitted that possession of the land in question was not handed over to the Society. It is further submitted that on an enquiry the owners of land were found to be in possession of the land, thereafter, in an enquiry in which the Society also participated, Notification under Section 48(1) of the Act was issued on 01.09.2010 and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Government had power to issue the Notification under Section 48(1) of the Act which was consistent with the finding recorded in the enquiry that owners of the land were in possession of the land in question. It is also submitted that orders passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this court in this intra court appeal. 7. It is also submitted that orders passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this court in this intra court appeal. 7. Learned counsel for owners of the land viz., respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that Society by communication dated 03.07.2004 had given consent for de-notification of the land. It is also urged that the Society in the aforesaid communication has admitted that the physical possession of the land was not handed over to the Society. It is contended that scheme, object and aim of Notifications issued under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act has been defeated by lapse of time, therefore, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the subsequent purchasers viz., respondent Nos.6 to 10 submitted that in 1985, owners of the land of Sy.No.20/10A measuring 1 acre and 22 guntas had developed the land and had formed the sites and the possession of the land in question was not handed over to the society and therefore, the land did not vest in the society. It was also pointed out that the President of Society had admitted in the communication dated 03.07.2004 that Notification under Section 16(2) of the Act was defective and only possession on paper was handed over to the Society and not the actual physical possession. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision in 'BALWANT NARAYAN BHAGDE VS. M.D.BHAGWAT AND OTHERS', (1976) 1 SCC 700 . 9. By way of rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the communication dated 03.07.2004 is forged and does not bear the signature of the President of the Society and First Information Report has been lodged for forgery in relation to the aforesaid document against respondent Nos.5 to 10. 10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The solitary issue, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in the obtaining factual matrix of the case, the State Government could have invoked the powers under Section 48 of the Act. 10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The solitary issue, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in the obtaining factual matrix of the case, the State Government could have invoked the powers under Section 48 of the Act. From perusal of the record, it is evident that owners of the land as well as the subsequent purchasers had filed W.P.No.17495-17498/2004 in which communication dated 31.03.2004 issued by the State Government to the Land Acquisition Officer directing him to hand over the possession of the land in question to the society was challenged. Paragraph Nos.7 & 8 of the writ petition reads as under: "7. The petitioners submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner has issued the Notification under Section 4(1)of the La Act dated 28/1/85 and published the same in the Gazette dated 1/2/95 proposing to acquire the land in question and such other lands for the purpose of formation of the residential layout in favour of the third respondent House Building Co-operative society Ltd., and the copy of which is marked as Annexure-H and on a perusal of the said Notification, the names of the owners relating to Sy.No.20/10 have not been notified and the land is notified as Sy.No.20/10 but not the Sub-Nos. as 20/10-A and 20/10B. The State Govt. has issued the Final Notification dated 24/1/86, which was published on 27.1.86 under Section 6 of the LA Act and the copy of which is produced as Annexure-J and whereas the land bearing Sy.No.20/10A and 20/10-B have been notified, which do not find a place in the preliminary Notification. 8. The petitioners submit that a common amount is made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 01.01.1987 & in pursuance of the award, the petitioners have not been offered or received the compensated amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, but in any event, the possession of the said lands with constructions thereon have not been taken by the Land Acquisition Officer so far i.e., for the last over 17 years from the date of passing of the award and consequently, the petitioners continued to be in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands, which are developed with constructions thereon. 11. 11. Thus, it is evident that the owners of the land as well as the purchasers were fully aware about the proceeding for acquisition of the land and about passing of the award. Despite having knowledge about the Notification issued under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act and despite passing of the award, the relief in the writ petition was confined only to quashment of the communication by which State Government had directed the Land Acquisition Officer to hand over the possession of land in question to the Society and a writ of mandamus was sought not to dispossess the owners of land and purchasers. The relief was claimed in writ petition in the following terms: (a) quash the impugned order made by the first respondent in No.RD.48.AQB.2000 dated 31.03.2004, which is marked as Annexure-P. (b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their lands in question and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity and law. 12. The aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn by the owners of the land and the subsequent purchasers. The owners of the land and the transferees had no locus to maintain the writ petition as an award was passed in respect of the lands on 24.08.1987 and a Notification under Section 16(2) of the Act was issued on 18.01.2000. 13. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Section 16 of the Act as amended by Karnataka Act No.17/1961 with effect from 24.08.1961, which is reproduced below for the facility of reference: 16. Power to take possession-(1) when the Deputy Commissioner has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. (2) The fact of such taking possession may be notified by the Deputy Commissioner in the official Gazette, and such Notification shall be evidence of such fact. 14. Thus, it is evident that issuance of Notification under Section 16(2) and publication of the Notification in the official gazette shall be evidence of the fact that the possession has been handed over. 15. 14. Thus, it is evident that issuance of Notification under Section 16(2) and publication of the Notification in the official gazette shall be evidence of the fact that the possession has been handed over. 15. Ordinarily, we would not have recorded the finding with regard to possession of the land in question in this appeal, which arises out of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, in the facts of the case and in the context of aforesaid provision, it is worthwhile to refer to paragraph 4 of the statement of objections filed by the State Government in W.P.Nos.17495-17498/2004, which reads as under: 4. It is submitted that the petitioner Sri.A.M.Srinath has purchased the property after the land has bee notified for acquisition. The petitioner A.M.Amarnath has purchased the property after the land has been notified for acquisition. The landing Sy.No.17/5 measuring 1.25 AG and the land in Sy.No.20/10 measuring 3.05 has been notified for acquisition in favour of the ITI Employees HBCS. Notification under Section 4(1) & 6(1) of the L.A.Act has been issued. Award in respect of acquired land has been passed on 1.1.1987 and approved on 24.08.1987. Award notice under Section 12(2) of the L.A.Act has been issued on 09.06.1988. Possession of the aid land has been taken on 15.06.1988, 29.12.1999, and Notification under Section 16(2) of the L.A.Act has been issued on 11.08.1988, 3.2.2000 and published in Karnataka Gazette on the writ petition filed in No.13329/2000, other writ petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court have been disposed by the Hon'ble High Court have been disposed by the Hon'ble High Court in their order dated 29.11.2002. 16. The aforesaid admission made on affidavit in earlier round of litigation binds the State Government and the State Government cannot be permitted to take a contrary stand in this proceeding. The aforesaid stand taken by the State Government is also supported by the original record, which has been produced before us which, we have carefully perused and we find that the record contains order dated 31.03.2004 issued by State Government to the Land Acquisition Officer directing him to hand over possession and official memorandum dated 08.07.2004 by which possession has been handed over to the Society. It is not disputed before us by learned Additional Government Advocate that document dated 08.07.2004 has been signed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is not disputed before us by learned Additional Government Advocate that document dated 08.07.2004 has been signed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, the official memorandum dated 08.07.2004 is evidence of the fact that the possession of the land measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Sy.No.20/10-A has been handed over to the Society. 17. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 17 of the order that the version of the State Government deserves to be accepted and the aforesaid position is clearly indicated from the record also cannot be sustained as the learned Single Judge has only recorded the conclusion without assigning any reasons. The aforesaid finding is not only contrary to the record but the stand taken by the State Government in previous round of litigation. At this stage, it is apposite to take note of Section 48(1) of the Act, which reads as under: 48 Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed. - (1) 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. 18. Thus from perusal of Section 48(1) of the Act, it is evident that if the possession of the land is taken, the powers under Section 48(1) of the Act cannot be exercised. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, the State Government could not have invoked the provisions of Section 48(1) of the Act and could not have issued the Notification dated 01.09.2010. The same is per se without jurisdiction and no sanctity in law can be attached to the same. In view of the reasons assigned by us supra, it is not necessary for us to deal with various other contentions raised by the parties. In view of preceding analysis, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.12.2010 is hereby set aside and the Notification dated 01.09.2010 issued insofar as it pertains to land bearing Sy.No.20/10-A measuring 1 acre and 22 guntas in exercise of purported powers under Section 48(1) of the Act is hereby quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed.