Petitioner Is A Resident Of ... vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 4839 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                    AT NAINITAL
      ON THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                          BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ K. TIWARI

     Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2452 of 2020
BETWEEN:

Prem Singh                               ... Petitioner
      (By Mr. H.C. Joshi, Advocate)

AND:

Union of India & others                  ... Respondents

      (By Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel)


                         JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner is a resident of Village Badethi, Patti Barsali, Tehsil Dunda, District Uttarkashi. In the year 2017, his agricultural land was acquired for construction of Badethi-Tekhala Motor Road under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Thereafter, on 25.05.2016, petitioner made a representation to District Magistrate, Uttarkashi contending that out of the land acquired from the petitioner, part was used for construction of road and the remaining land is lying unused, since petitioner has become landless on account of acquisition of his entire land, therefore, unused land may be re-conveyed to him on payment of price as per Circle Rate, so that he may use the same for agricultural purposes. He had

placed reliance on a Government Order dated 09.04.1973 in the representation.

3. The District Magistrate called a report from Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dunda. The report submitted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate was forwarded by the District Magistrate to State Government vide letter dated 28.05.2020, whereby guidance was sought from the State Government. State Government turned down proposal submitted by District Magistrate by holding that there is no provision for returning the land, acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by State Government, petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Petitioner has relied upon Government Order dated 09.04.1973 issued by State of Uttar Pradesh. The said order does not confer a right upon a tenure holder to claim re-conveyance of the land acquired from him. The said Government Order lays down guidelines to deal with different contingency altogether and petitioner's case is not covered by the said Government Order.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by District Magistrate, Uttarkashi. In para 7 of the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that the unutilized land, acquired from the petitioner, may be used for widening of the road, therefore, petitioner's request for return of the land was not acceded to.

6. Respondent no. 4 in his counter affidavit has stated in para 8 that Government Order dated

09.04.1973 is not applicable in Uttarakhand State and further that the land in question cannot be returned to the petitioner, as it would be needed for widening of the road. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, respondent no. 4 has further stated that since petitioner's land was acquired under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not under the new Act of 2013, therefore in the absence of any provision for return of the unutilized land in the old Act, petitioner's request was rightly rejected.

7. The sole question, which falls for consideration in the present case, is whether a land acquired for public purpose, under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be re-conveyed to the original owner after it has vested in the State. The issue is no longer res- integra.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs Pune Municipal Transport & others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 467, has held as under:-

"19. In a similar situation, in Gulam Mustafa & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, this Court held as under:-

"Once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the...declaration."

20. Re-iterating a similar view in C. Padma & Ors. Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of

Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627, this Court held that if by virtue of a valid acquisition of land, land stands vested in the State, thereafter, claimants are not entitled to restoration of possession on the grounds that either the original public purpose is ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for any other purposes.

21. In Bhagat Singh etc. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 436; Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2002 SC 2532; and Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 335, this Court held that, the land user can be changed by the Statutory Authority after the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances.

22. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that once the land is acquired, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the land owner how his land is used and whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to get compensation only for the same. The person interested cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any ground, whatsoever."

9. Similar view was expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran and another Vs Administrative Officer & others reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133, where it was held that land acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1984 cannot be restored to the original tenure holder, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:

"25. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the land is vested in the State, free from all

encumbrances, it cannot be divested and proceedings under the Act would not lapse, even if an award is not made within the statutorily stipulated period. (Vide: Avadh Behari Yadav v. State of Bihar &. Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 31; U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd.

(Supra); Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 424, M. Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 322; and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar & Ors., AIR 2005 SC

492).

26. The said land, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure holders/persons- interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was so acquired, or for any other purpose either. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, or under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, once the possession of the land has been taken and the land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. (Vide: State of Madhya Pradesh v. V.P. Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593; Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517; Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. v. Shri Kishan & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 84 and Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India v. Subodh Singh & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 100).

27. The meaning of the word 'vesting', has been considered by this Court time and again. In Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1957 SC 344, this Court held that the meaning of word 'vesting' varies as per the context of the Statute, under which the property vests. So far as the vesting under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act is concerned, the Court held as under.-

"19................In the cases contemplated by Sections 16 and 17, the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any condition or ; limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that

vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration."

28. In Gulam Mustafa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, in a similar situation, this Court held as under:-

"Once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the ....declaration."

29. Similarly, in State of Kerala & Anr. v.

M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., (1997) 5 SCC 432, this Court held as under:

"It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution.

(See also: C. Padma & Ors. v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627; Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 436; Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2002 SC 2532; Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 335; and Leelawanti & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 66).

30. In Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Syed Akbar (Supra), this Court considered this very issue and held that, once the land has vested in the State, it can neither be divested, by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, nor can it be reconveyed to the persons-

interested/tenure holders, and that therefore, the question of restitution of possession to the tenure holder, does not arise. (See also: Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 1296; Chandragaudaj Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 6 SCC 405; State of Kerala & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2703; Printers (Mysore) . Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 460; Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508; and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC

354).

31. In view of the above, the law can be crystallized to mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of the land owner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non-grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to only receive compensation for the same, unless the acquisition proceeding is itself challenged. The State neither has the requisite power to reconvey the land to the person- interested, nor can such person claim any right of restitution on any ground, whatsoever, unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect."

10. Similar view was expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeo v. State of U.P., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 524. Paragraph no. 16 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

"16. Indisputably, the land in question was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of expansion of the city i.e. construction of residential/commercial building under the planned development scheme by the Meerut Development Authority and that major portion of the land has already been utilised by the Authority. Merely because some land was left at the relevant time, that does not give any right to the Authority to send proposal to the Government for release of the land in favour of the landowners. The impugned orders passed by the High Court

directing the Authority to press the resolution are absolutely unwarranted in law."

11. This Court in WPMS No. 1100 of 2007 (Nakkal & others V. State of Uttarakhand & others) has also held that land remaining unutilized after acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1984, cannot be returned back to the previous owner and it can be used for some other similar public purpose.

12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Government, which is impugned in this writ petition.

13. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Aswal