IMPORTANT POINT
Once land is vested in the government after acquisition, it cannot be returned to the original owners, even if not utilized for the intended purpose.

JUDGMENT :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. A Judgment and order dated November 23, 2022, whereby the writ application of one Panchanan Maity & Anr., being WPA 17176 of 2000, was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. The original appellants were the writ petitioners i.e. Panchanan Maity and Kanan Kumar Maity. Both of them having passed away during the pendency of the appeal, their respective legal heirs have come on record. They are the present appellants.

2. Land belonging to the appellants (which term would also include the predecessors-in-interests of the appellants) was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition proceedings were initiated in the form of LA Case No. 33 of 1968-69. It is not in dispute that notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued in the year 1968. Within the stipulated time period, declaration was made under section 6 of the said Act. Award was declared by the Collector. Notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was served on the appellants. The appellants received compensation money in 1974 and 1977.

3. The case argued by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that possession of the land was never taken by the Government. The appellants are still in possession. The land was never utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. The compensation that was paid to the appellants was a pittance compared to what they are entitled to. They prayed for a direction on the State Government to return the land to them upon the appellants returning the compensation amount received by them against acquisition of the land.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujrat & Anr. reported at AIR 1991 SC 213, in support of her submission that if the land acquired by the Government is not utilized, the same has to be returned to the original owners. Learned Advocate also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Calcutta Improvement Trust & Ors. reported at AIR 1989 SC 263, in support of her contention that if there is inordinate delay in concluding the acquisition proceedings, the entire proceedings shall lapse.

5. The learned Judge found from an order dated June 12, 2000, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Haldia Project, Basudevpur that the writ petitioners accepted the compensation money paid to them, without protest or without making any reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act for enhancement of the compensation amount. The said order further records that possession of the land has been taken over by the State Government.

6. The learned Judge also found on record a certificate of possession issued in connection with the State Government handing over the concerned land to the Haldia Dock Complex being the requiring body. Such certificate obviously militates against the contention of the writ petitioners that possession of the concerned land is still with them.

7. The learned Judge concluded that upon declaration of award, possession was taken by the State Government under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, whereupon, the land vested in the State Government. There is no provision in law contemplating return of such vested land to the original land owner even if the land is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired or at all. The learned Judge distinguished the decisions relied upon by learned Advocate for the writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

8. Appearing for the appellants, Ms. Maity, learned Advocate submitted that because of long pendency of the acquisition proceedings, the same deserve to be quashed. In this connection learned Advocate relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ratan Chand Burman & Anr. v. The Chairman,