Writ petition challenging land acquisition from 1956 was dismissed. Court held acquired land cannot be reconveyed to owners after vesting, and stale compensation claims beyond five decades are not entertained.
Petition for release of land and compensation dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 11105 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 11105 of 2013
Date of Decision: 22.5.2013
Dharamvir Tyagi and others
....Petitioners.
Versus
Union of India and another
...Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA.
PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate and
Mr. Arjun Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
CWP No. 11105 of 2013 -2-
by the Haryana Government vide notification dated 18.9.1956 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Act for quarrying purposes. The said notification was followed by notification dated 15.5.1957 under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the award dated 24.1.1959. The said land was acquired for two purposes, i.e. extension of industrial area and for quarrying purposes. The amount of compensation qua the land acquired for extension of the industrial area was disbursed to the land owners but for the quarrying purpose, till date no compensation had been paid to the landowners. The son of petitioner No.1 sought information regarding the compensation being paid to the landowners whose land was acquired for quarrying purposes but no information was available with regard to the same. The land so acquired for quarrying purposes was not used for the said purpose and was transferred in the name of Union of India. Thereafter, Union of India vide letter dated 31.3.1981 (Annexure P-3) proposed to transfer the land so acquired and the residuary assets to the Government of Haryana (Rehabilitation Department) at a total amount of 6,77,340/- for the area measuring 140 acres i.e. 4840/- per acre which included the land of the petitioners. The said land was acquired at a total cost of ` 1014/- per acre. Since the petitioners were of the view that the land would be put to use for the purpose for which it was acquired, however, the same had not been used for any public purpose and was lying vacant, they approached various authorities to know the status of the acquired land but of no use. Hence, the present writ petition.
CWP No. 11105 of 2013
-3-
put to said use till date, the petitioners were entitled to the release of the said land. It was also urged that no compensation has been paid to the petitioners for the said acquisition.
“10. 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. Under Section 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 under Section 48, the
CWP No. 11105 of 2013 -4-
Government could not withdraw from acquisition or to reconvey 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
“14. From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions, it follows that (1) under Section 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 such circumstances, the challenge to the acquisition proceedings cannot be maintained. The said argument is, thus, rejected.
CWP No. 11105 of 2013 -5-
expiry of more than five decades, no writ petition can be entertained for such a claim.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
May 22, 2013 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) gbs JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether acquired land can be released to original owners if not utilized for public purpose.
Whether claim for unutilized compensation can be entertained after five decades.
Whether acquisition proceedings are valid when land remains unused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govt. of A.P. and another V. Syed AkbarReferred¶23
Govt. of A.P. and another V. Syed Akbar (2005) 1 S.C.C. 558 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Dharamvir Tyagi and others
Union of India
Ajay Kumar Mittal
G. S. Sandhwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
