Ravinder Saini and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court through the present petition filed under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India whereby they have sought to revive a stale claim for release of their land which stood acquired about 17 years back. A few facts relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved herein, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioners were owners of agricultural land situated in village Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. In 1995, the State of Haryana through Urban Estate Department issued notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act") for acquisition of land for development and utilization for residential, industrial and commercial purposes for pocket of Sectors 9 and 9A in Bahadurgarh. The land owners filed objections u/s 5-A of the Act within the stipulated period. The State of Haryana proceeded with the acquisition and issued notification u/s 6 and subsequently u/s 9 of the Act. According to the petitioners, their land is lying vacant since 1995 and no development work has been carried out and even the development plan for the acquired land has not been sanctioned by the respondents. The petitioners aver that their land was their livelihood and if the State acquires some land, it should be developed within the reasonable period and should not remain unutilized for years. In the present case, 17 years have passed but no development has taken place yet. The petitioners, therefore, pray for release of their land through the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to dispute that the petitioners had received the compensation and had sought enhancement of the same. It was also not disputed that the possession had also been taken from the petitioners by the State. In such a situation, u/s 16 of the Act, the land in dispute had vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Section 16 of the Act reads as under:-

Power to take possession. When the Collector has made an award u/s 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. and Another Vs. Syed Akbar, while allowing the appeal in a case where the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the authorities to hand over the unused portion of the land to the petitioners by collecting the amount of compensation already paid with interest @ 12% per annum and after noticing the standing orders, held as under:-

It is neither debated nor disputed as regards the valid acquisition of the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the possession of the land had been taken. By virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land has vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. In the instant case, even u/s 48, the Government could not withdraw from acquisition or to re-convey the said land to the respondent as the possession of the land had already been taken. The position of law is well settled.

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX

From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions, it follows that (1) u/s 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances; (2) the land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for any other public purpose; and (3) the acquired land which is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be re-assigned or reconveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order.

In National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Dutta and Others, , it was held that if possession of the land had been taken over in respect of which notification had already been issued, the State would be divested of its power to withdraw from the acquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Act.

In view of the above, challenge to the acquisition on the ground that the purpose for which it was acquired was not being carried out, would not justify the release of the land. In such a situation, the relief claimed in this writ petition cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.