Back
Can Land Be Acquired via Corrigendum After Award? Tripura High Court Says No, Return Land
In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of in land acquisition, the has held that additional land cannot be acquired through a mere after the original acquisition proceedings have concluded. Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud quashed a that sought to acquire the remaining 0.019 acres of land belonging to petitioner Smt. Gitanjali Saha and directed the authorities to return the land to her.
The Land in Question
The case revolved around a parcel of 0.040 acres in Mouja Barjala, West Tripura, owned by Smt. Gitanjali Saha. In , the issued a notification under the , to acquire 0.021 acres of her land for converting the road from Lichubagan to the Agartala Airport into a four-lane thoroughfare. The acquisition was completed, compensation of Rs. 7,94,565 was paid, and the road was opened to the public by .
However, on —after the project had been completed—the authorities issued a seeking to acquire the remaining 0.019 acres. The stated purpose was to provide footpath and parking space alongside the airport road and to facilitate the movement of school children. The petitioner alleged that the real motive was to benefit Respondent No. 4, a local municipal councillor and neighbour, who lacked a proper motorable road to her property.
The Challenge
The petitioner challenged the before the High Court, arguing that it could not be used to fundamentally alter the scope of a completed project or to acquire additional land. She contended that corrigenda are meant only to correct clerical or typographical errors, not to substitute for a fresh notification under the Act. She also pointed out that the had been issued without public notice or publication in any newspaper, and that it singled out only her residual land.
The State respondents defended the acquisition, arguing that the land was required for the greater and that the had been gazetted properly.
Precedent
The petitioner's counsel relied heavily on the 's judgment in State of U.P. and others vs. Abdul Ali and others (Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2017). In that case, the had held that once an is passed, there is no question of correcting a notification under Section 4(1) or declaration under . The Court had observed that an cannot be passed for a property for which no notification existed.
Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud quoted extensively from this judgment, noting that the same principle applied to acquisitions under the 2013 Act. The original acquisition proceedings had concluded with the of compensation in , and the project was complete. There was no statutory provision that allowed a to reopen the process.
The Verdict
Setting aside the
dated
, and all subsequent proceedings, the High Court held that the
"cannot be treated as notification under the Statute wherein, the transact itself came to an end way back in the year
."
The Court directed the respondent authorities to return the 0.019 acres of land to the petitioner.
However, the Court left the door open for
. Observing that the land might genuinely be needed for public purposes such as parking, footpath, or school children movement, the Court stated that it was
"always open for the respondent-authorities if so advised, to follow the statutes and to take steps accordingly for
as per law."
The decision reinforces the principle that governments cannot bypass statutory procedures by using corrigenda to acquire additional land after the original acquisition process has been completed. It serves as a reminder that the demands strict adherence to the procedures laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, and that any deviation—even for an asserted public purpose—will not be countenanced by the courts.
