[CASE NUMBER] [ACT]: HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY]sd/ and HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY]sd/ 1 WhetherReportersofLocalPapersmaybeallowedtosee NO thejudgment? 2 TobereferredtotheReporterornot? NO 3 WhethertheirLordshipswishtoseethefaircopyofthe NO judgment? 4 Whetherthiscaseinvolvesasubstantialquestionoflawas NO to the interpretation of the [ACT] or any ordermadethereunder? [ENTITY]/ORAMJIBHAIDAHYABHAIVADARIA& 4 Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] Respondent(s) Appearance: [ENTITY],ADVOCATEforthePetitioner(s)No.15 Mr.[ENTITY]/PPfortheRespondent(s)No.1 NOTICESERVEDfortheRespondent(s)No.12 CORAM:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY] and HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY] Date:27/06/2017 ORALJUDGMENT
(PER:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY]) 1.0. By way of this petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT]thepetitionersclaimingtobeheirsandlegal representatives of the original owners have prayed for an appropriatewrit,directionandordertoregrantthelandbearing revenuesurveyno.57ofvillageThoradaTal&Dist.Rajkot.
HC-NIC Page 1 of 9 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:16:26 IST 2017 [CASE NUMBER]
2.0. The facts leading to the present petition in nutshellare as under:
2.1. ThatthelandbearingSurveyNo.57ofvillageThorada,Tal:
Rajkot came to be acquired under the provisions of [ACT] in the year 1962 for Seed Farm for DepartmentofAgricultureandCooperation.Thatattherelevant time,intheyear1962,theawardunderSection11oftheLand AcquisitionActwasdeclaredandtheoriginallandownerswaspaid thecompensationwhichcametobeaccepted.Thatattherelevant timethepossessionofthelandinquestionwasalsotakenoverand same came to be used thereafter for Seed Farm. It appears that thereafter for Seed Farm. It appears that thereafter in the year 2001, the Seed Farm Thorada came to be closed and therefore, nameofGovernmentwasmutatedintherevenuerecordandthe landwashandedovertheCollector,Rajkot.ThattheCollectoron behalfoftheStateGovernmenttookthepossessionofthelandin questioninthemonthofJuly2005.Thatthereafter,asthelandin question was needed for another public purpose i.e. Tourism Department,StateofGujaratandtherefore,thelandinquestion was allotted to the Tourism Department for development of TourismandConventionCenter.Bymutationentryno.1136dated 24.11.2008thenameofTourismDepartmentwasmutatedinthe revenue records. That thereafter, the petitioners have preferred SpecialCivilApplication intheyear2017toregrantthelandin questiontothemonthegroundthatthelandinquestionisnot neededforthepurposeforwhich,itwasacquiredi.e.SeedFarm andthatnowthelandisallottedtotheTourismDepartment.
HC-NIC Page 2 of 9 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:16:26 IST 2017 [CASE NUMBER] 3.0. Shri [ENTITY], learned advocate for the petitioners has vehementlysubmittedthatasthelandinquestionhasremainedin useformorethan40yearsafterthesamewasacquiredandeven nowpossessionhasbeentakenintheyear2008tohandoverthe possessiontotheTourismDepartmentthepurposeforwhichland inquestionhasbeenacquiredhasfrustratedand/orthelandin questionisnotneededforthepurposeforwhich,itwasacquired and therefore, the land be regranted to the petitioners for agricultural activities. It is submitted by Shri [ENTITY], learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready and willingtoreturntheamountofcompensationwithinterestwhich waspaidtopredecessors.Noothersubmissionshavebeenmade.
Makingabovesubmissions,itisrequestedtoallow/admit thepresentpetition.
4.0. Present petition is vehemently opposed by Shri [ENTITY], learnedAssistantGovernmentPleaderappearingonbehalfofthe State. It is submitted by Shri [ENTITY], learned Assistant GovernmentPleaderthatattheoutset,itissubmittedthatpetition deservestobedismissedonthegroundofdelayandlaches.Itis submitted that the land in question has been acquired as far as backintheyear1962andthepredecessorofthepetitionershave beenpaidcompensationattherelevanttimeandthepossessionof thelandinquestionwasalsotakenoverfromthepredecessorin the year 196263. It is submitted that the petition has been preferred in the year 2017. It is submitted that therefore, the presentpetitiondeservestobedismissedontheegroundofdelay andlaches.
HC-NIC Page 3 of 9 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:16:26 IST 2017 [CASE NUMBER]
4.1. ItisfurthersubmittedbyShri[ENTITY],learnedAGPthatin factoncethelandinquestionwasacquiredundertheprovisionsof [ACT] after following due procedure as requiredandoriginallandownershadbeenpaidthecompensation andthepossessionoftheacquirelandhasbeentakenover,asper Section16oftheLandAcquisitionAct,1894,thelandabsolutely vestintheStateGovernment/acquiringbody.Itissubmittedthat thereaftertheoriginallandownershadnoright,titleorinterestin the land in question. It is submitted that as such there is no provisionofregrant.
4.2. ItisfurthersubmittedbyShri[ENTITY],learnedAGPthateven after the land in question was acquired for Seed Farm and the possessionofthelandwastakenover,thesamecametobeusedas Seed Farm upto the year 2011. It is submitted that however thereafter the Seed Farm at Thorada came to be closed and therefore,thelandinquestionwastobeofthedisposaloftheState Governmentandthereafterasthelandinquestionwasneededby theTourismDepartmentforConventionCenter,thesamehasbeen now alloted at the disposal of the Tourism Department. It is submittedthattherefore,itcannotbesaidthatthelandinquestion has not been used at all since last 14 years as alleged by the petitioners.
Makingabovesubmissionsandrelyinguponthedecisionof theHon'ble SupremeCourt inthecaseof [PRECEDENT]
HC-NIC Page 4 of 9 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:16:26 IST 2017 [CASE NUMBER]
5.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by way of petitionunder[SECTION]ofthe[ACT]theheirs andlegalrepresentativeoftheoriginallandownerswhoselandhas been acquired in the year 1962 have prayed for an appropriate writ,directionandordertoregrantthelandtothemontheground thatthelandinquestionacquiredforSeedFarm,Departmentof AgricultureandCooperation,StateofGujaratandnowthesameis allottedtoTourismDepartmentthelandinquestionisnotneeded forthepurpose,forwhich,thesamehasbeenacquired.However,it isrequiredtobenotedthatlandinquestionhasbeenacquiredin theyear1962afterfollowingdueprocedureasrequiredunderthe provisions of [ACT]. At the relevant time, awardunderSection11oftheActcametobepublishedandthe originallandowners/predecessorsofthepetitionerwerepaidthe compensation. Even the possession of the land in question was alreadytakenoverforthepurposeofSeedFarmandinfactthe land in question wasusedfor theSeedFarm, Thoradaupto the year 2001. Under the circumstances, once the original land owners / predecessors of the petitioner were paid the compensationfortheacquiredlandandthepossessionofthesame wastakenoverfrom himandinfactthesamecametobeused subsequentlyfortheSeedFarm,Thorada,forwhich,thelandwas acquired,consideringSection16oftheLandAcquisitionAct,the land in question is absolutely vested in the State Government / acquiringbody.Thatthereafter,neitheroriginallandownernorthe petitioners have any right, title or interest over the land in question.
HC-NIC Page 5 of 9 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:16:26 IST 2017 [CASE NUMBER]
6.0. Itisrequiredtobenotedthatuptotheyear2001,thelandin questionhasbeenusedforSeedFarmThorada,howeverthereafter the Seed Farm came to be closed and thereafter as the land in question absolutely vested in the State Government / acquiring bodyandthelandwasneededforanotherpublicpurpose,theland wasputatthedisposaloftheStateGovernment/Collectorand thereafter as the land in question is needed by the Tourism DepartmentforConventionCenter,thesamehasbeenallottedto the Tourism Department in the year 2008. Under the circumstances, it cannot be saidthat the landin question is not usedatallforlast40yearsforthepurposeforwhichthesamewas acquiredasallegedbythepetitioners.Fromthematerialonrecord, itappearsthatlandinquestionwasusedupto200001forSeed Farm, Thorada. That thereafter, land in question is allotted to Tourism Department for another public purpose. Under the circumstances,thepetitionerscannotclaimregrantoftheacquired landwhichhasbeenacquiredintheyear1961.
7.0. Atthisstage,decisionoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtinthe caseof [PRECEDENT] is required to be referredto.Intheaforesaiddecisioninparagraphnos.25to31Honble SupremeCourthasobservedandheldasunder;
"25. Itisasettled legal proposition, thatonce the land is vestedintheState,freefromallencumbrances,itcannotbe divestedandproceedingsundertheActwouldnotlapse,even if an award is not made within the statutorily stipulated period.(Vide:[PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] (Supra); Allahabad Development Authority v.
Nasiruzzaman & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 424, [PRECEDENT] Created On Mon Aug 14 23:16:26 IST 2017 [CASE NUMBER] Thevarv.StateofTamilNadu&Ors.,(2000)4SCC322; and [PRECEDENT].
26.Thesaidland,onceacquired,cannotberestoredtothe tenureholders/personsinterested,evenifitisnotusedfor thepurposeforwhichitwassoacquired,orforanyother purpose either. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandonedundertheprovisionsofSection48of theAct,[ACT]once thepossessionofthelandhasbeentakenandthelandvests in the State, free from all encumbrances. (Vide: [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT].
27.Themeaningoftheword'vesting',hasbeenconsidered by this Court time and again. In [PRECEDENT] varies as per the context of the Statute, under which the propertyvests.Sofarasthevestingunder Sections16and 17 oftheActisconcerned,theCourtheldasunder.(AIR p.353,para19) "19 InthecasescontemplatedbySections16 and 17, the property acquired becomes the propertyofGovernmentwithoutanyconditionor ;limitationseitherastotitleorpossession.The legislaturehasmadeitclearthatvestingofthe propertyisnotforanylimitedpurposeorlimited duration.
[PRECEDENT] under:(SCCp.802,para5) "5 Once the original acquisition is valid and titlehasvestedintheMunicipality,howituses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot bethe basisfor invalidating the acquisition. There isno principle oflawby which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voidedbecauselonglatertherequiringAuthority HC-NIC Page 7 of 9 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:16:26 IST 2017 [CASE NUMBER] divertsittoapublicpurposeotherthantheone statedinthe&.declaration.
29.Similarly,in [PRECEDENT], thisCourtheldasunder: (SCC p.433, para4)
4 Itissettledlawthatifthelandisacquired forapublicpurpose,afterthepublicpurposewas achieved,therestoftheland couldbeusedfor any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed,theninsteadofdisposalbywayofsaleto the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the publicauctioncanbebetterutilisedforthepublic purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of theConstitution.
(See also: [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT].
30. In [PRECEDENT] held that, once the land hasvested inthe State, itcan neitherbedivested,byvirtueofSection48oftheAct,nor can it be reconveyed to the persons interested/tenure holders,andthattherefore,thequestionofrestitutionof possessiontothetenureholder,doesnotarise.(Seealso:
[PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT].
31. Inview of the above, the law can be crystallized to mean, thatonce theland isacquired anditvests inthe State,freefromallencumbrances,itisnottheconcernof HC-NIC Page 8 of 9 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:16:26 IST 2017 [CASE NUMBER] the land owner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose.Hebecomespersonanongrataoncethelandvests intheState.Hehasarighttoonlyreceivecompensation for the same, unless the acquisition proceeding is itself challenged.TheStateneitherhastherequisitepowertore convey the land to the person interested, nor can such person claim any right of restitution on any ground, whatsoever,unlessthereissomestatutoryamendmentto thiseffect.
8. Inviewoftheaboveandforthereasonsstatedabove,present petitionfailsandsamedeservetobedismissedandisaccordingly dismissed.Noticedischarged.
sd/ ([ENTITY],J.) sd/ ([ENTITY],J.) [ENTITY] HC-NIC Page 9 of 9 Created On Mon Aug 14 23:16:26 IST 2017