2026 Supreme(SC) 291

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, CJI, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.
The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Represented by its Member Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Dharmalingam and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3234-3251 of 2026 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13905-13922 of 2015]
Decided On : 10-03-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Release of acquired land – Scheme of Section 48-B of LA Act, does not envisage any enforceable right in favour of expropriated landowner to seek transfer of acquired land.
(2) No timeline can be imposed on Government or its beneficial agencies for putting acquired land to use for public purpose once acquisition is lawfully completed.
(3) Scope of judicial review in cases where State has declined to exercise its discretion under Section 48-B of LA Act is limited.

Headnote:

(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 16-B read with Section 48-B – Release of acquired land – Scheme of Section 48-B of LA Act, does not envisage any enforceable right in favour of expropriated landowner to seek transfer of acquired land – Rather, it confers discretion upon State to permit re-conveyance of land to original landowner in certain circumstances, being that acquired land can neither be utilised for original purpose of acquisition nor for any other public purpose – Unless this two-pronged condition is fulfilled, question of exercise of State’s discretion does not arise – Pre-condition expressly encapsulated within text of provision must be mandatorily complied with, and Courts ought to desist from issuing orders invoking Section 48-B in absence of clear material to indicate that land cannot be utilised for a public purpose. (Paras 8 and 10)

(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48-B read with Section 17 – Release of acquired land – No timeline can be imposed on Government or its beneficial agencies for putting acquired land to use for public purpose once acquisition is lawfully completed – Only exception in such a case would lie in situations where urgency provision under Section 17 of LA Act has been invoked – In present case, substantial part of acquired land had already been put to use for originally envisaged public purpose – State had made a consistent effort to assign residual land to another public purpose – There is nothing placed on record to show that, at any point in time, Government was of the opinion that land in question was not suitable or usable for any public purpose – That being so, mandatory condition of Section 48-B was never satisfied – Division Bench of High Court has misdirected itself in directing reconveyance of acquired land despite not meeting the prerequisite – There was no occasion for High Court to invoke rigours of Section 48-B – Constitutional Courts ought to undertake circumspection when exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction to direct release of lawfully acquired land – Merely acquisition having not resulted in land being utilised within a particular period of time is no reason for Court to direct land to be released to landowners. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)

(C) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – [Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48] – Release of acquired land – Section 48-B of LA Act does not clothe an expropriated owner with any right to seek re-conveyance of land – Even if such a landowner has made application purportedly under Section 48-B of LA Act, that does not take away power of State to revisit original public purpose or to divert land for any other bona-fide public use – In absence of a positive right, what Court ought to examine, while undertaking judicial review over action/inaction under Section 48-B, is whether exercise of discretion is founded upon mala-fide or arbitrary reasons or if decision-making is tainted by a colourable exercise of power – Scope of judicial review in cases where State has declined to exercise its discretion under Section 48-B of LA Act is limited – Neither delay in using acquired land nor representation of landowners filed in interregnum could sustain positive directions for exercise of such discretion under said provision – If landowners did not approach said Authority for release of that compensation in order to challenge acquisition or seek relief under Section 48-B of LA Act, actions of State functionaries cannot be said to be within mischief of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Since compensation had been offered, possession, even if retained by owners, is entirely inconsequential – Decision of State Government and Appellant-Authority to not re-convey land in question to original landowners under Section 48-B of LA Act upheld. (Paras 18, 19, 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

Appellant-Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority is in appeal against judgment dated 12.07.2013 (First Impugned Judgment) and subsequent order dated 25.09.2014 (Second Impugned Order) passed by two different Division Benches of High Court of Judicature at Madras (High Court). Vide first judgment, intra-court appeals preferred by respondent-land owners were allowed, with direction to release acquired land in purported exercise of powers under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as applicable in State of Tamil Nadu. Second order was passed by High Court, rejecting Review Application preferred by Appellant.

Findings of Court:

Respondent-landowners shall be entitled to receive due compensation, which is lying deposited with Competent Authority, along with interest, if any, accrued thereupon.

Result : Appeals allowed with directions.