JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner being the loser of land in the acquisition process is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the notice dtd. 16/12/2020 (Annexure K) so far as it concerns her whereby her bank account in which the compensation has been credited by the 2nd Respondent is directed to be frozen. 2. After service of notice, the respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance through their Senior Panel Counsel who has filed the Statement of Objections opposing the Writ Petition. The 3rd Respondent - Bank in which the petitioner maintains her account has remained unrepresented despite service, presumably because it has no stakes in the matter. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as indisputably, the land of the petitioner having been acquired by passing the award on 13/4/2020 and taking the possession, the 2nd Respondent has already credited the compensation amount to the bank account of the Petitioner. A chunk of this credit is drawn by the Petitioner as well. 4. Once the acquisition proceedings are accomplished by passing of the award followed by taking of possession that too after making the payment of compensation to the land loser, how impugned notice of the kind could have been issued to the 3rd Respondent bank for freezing of petitioner's account, remains a legal riddle wrapped in enigma. Despite turning the pages of statue book ie., the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, the learned panel counsel appearing for 2nd Respondent could not locate the power to undo the acquisition by taking the steps that are now put in challenge. 5. It is a well settled position of law, the land of a private citizen is taken for a public purpose and on payment of compensation by the State in the exercise of power of eminent domain. However, such power does not include the power to undo the acquisition once possession has been taken and the structures standing on the land in question have been removed by the beneficiary of acquisition. However, such power does not include the power to undo the acquisition once possession has been taken and the structures standing on the land in question have been removed by the beneficiary of acquisition. Once formal proceedings are drawn about taking of possession of the land, the contention that physical possession is yet to be taken, cannot be countenanced, especially when it is the specific case of the petitioner that she is no longer in the possession of the property nor will she hover near it. 6. The vehement contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the subject acquisition is being undone because about 89% of the land losers oppose the road being laid in their lands and that the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner has suggested to deviate from the project, even if true, cannot come to the rescue of respondent nos. 1 and 2. It hardly needs to be stated the acquisition of land on accomplishment, divests interest of its owner and vests it in the acquiring body or the beneficiary of acquisition, by operation of law. The compensation is an essential component of a legal acquisition of property, right to which is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A. This is a fit case for levy of costs. However, this Court reluctantly abstains from levying any, on the pining of the Panel Counsel. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned notice. The bank account of the petitioner stands defreezed with immediate effect and the 3rd respondent- Bank shall permit the petitioner to operate the said account in accordance with law.