Smt. Savitri Bai Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3905 MP

                                     1                              WP-19277-2017
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WP-19277-2017
  (SMT. SAVITRI BAI AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Jabalpur, Dated : 03-08-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
      Shri Rahul Deshmukh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

This petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India

seeking following relief:-

"1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned Letters Ans.-P/3 and P/4 passed by Respondent No.1 and 5 vide letters dated 26.10.2017 and 10.08.2017.

2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the applications Annexure P/1 and P/2 filed by the petitioners before the Respondents accordingly the land acquired by the Respondents in land acquisition case No.32/A-82/1993-94 and

land acquisition case No.33/A-82/1993-94 be return back to the petitioners.

3. That, other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition."

The facts of the case in a nut shell are that the petitioners' agricultural land situated at village Basha and village Khursi, Patwari Halka No. 72, both Tahsil and District Jabalpur bearing Khasra Nos.5, 12, 70, 76 and 63 total area measuring 14.35 hectare has been acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide case No.32/A-82/1993-94 and case No.33/A-82/1993-94. The land was acquired by the State for constructing left bank canal of Bargi Dam Jabalpur. After due procedure, a compensation was determined and that was paid to the petitioners.

2 WP-19277-2017 As per the petitioners, even after lapse of almost 24 years of acquisition their land is lying unutilised and still the respondents have no need to make any construction over the land acquired relating to the petitioners.

An application has been moved by the petitioners on 14.02.2017 and other villagers for returning their land as the same is not required to the

respondents and no construction over the said land is to be made by them.

The application submitted by the petitioners has been rejected by the authority vide order/letter dated 10.08.2017 (Annexure-P/4) because by that letter the Executive Engineer, Narmada Development Division No.4, Bargi Hills Jabalpur informed the Collector that the land which is being sought to be returned back would be required in future because on a guidance obtained from the Superintending Engineer, it is informed that the canal for which the land has been acquired has already been constructed and in case any situation arises for repair of the said canal or for its reconstruction then the land acquired would be required as the soil of the land would be utilized. As such, the respondent authority has refused to release the land.

In this petition, the petitioners are claiming their right over the acquired land by virtue of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2013'), in which, there is a provision for return of unutilised land providing if the land acquired by the State is not utilized for a period of five years from the date of taking over of the possession, the same shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs as the case may be.

The State has filed reply and refused to reassign the acquired land to the landowners mainly on the ground that the land is still needed by the respondent/State and even otherwise according to the respondents under the provisions in which land has been acquired i.e. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act, 1894'), there is no provision for returning the land once it is acquired by the State and the same is vested in the State.

3 WP-19277-2017 However, in the Act, 2013 the Government has provided the provision if the land is of no use and unutilised for the purpose for which it is acquired then the same can be released. But, that Act is not applicable to the petitioners. The provision of the said Act is not helpful to the petitioners because their land was acquired by virtue of the Act, 1894. The Act, 2013 has no retrospective effect and the land acquired under the provisions of the Act, 1894, therefore, the Act, 2013 would not be applicable to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the respondents/State has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 1 SCC 558 parties being Govt. of A.P. and another Vs. Syed Akbar , in which, the Supreme Court has very categorically observed that the land once acquired and vested in the

State, cannot be released merely because it is left unutilized. The Supreme Court in its judgment has very categorically laid down that the land once vested in the State, cannot be reassigned. It is also observed by the Supreme Court that the land once vested in the State and is not being used for the purpose for which it was acquired, the same can be used for some other purpose but it cannot be reassigned or reconveyed to the original owner.

In the reply submitted by the respondents/State, it is clear that the land still required by them and even otherwise there is no provision under the Act, 1894 for releasing the land or to reconvey the same to the original owner. The provisions Act, 2013 would not be applicable to the petitioners as the land has been acquired somewhere in the year 1993-94 and the Act, 2013 came into force only in the year 2013 without any retrospective effect.

The petition therefore, is without any substance and accordingly, it is dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

ac/-

ANIL CHOUDHARY 2021.08.05 10:13:09 +05'30'