Point of Law : When any land, acquired under this Act remains unutilized for a period of five years from date of taking over possession, the same shall be returned to original owner or owners or their legal heirs, as the case may be, or to Land Bank of appropriate Government by reversion in manner as may be prescribed by appropriate Government.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Assam and its functionaries and Ms. A. Gayan, the learned CGC appearing for the Union of India and its functionaries.

2. All the three writ petitions being connected are taken up for disposal as they involve common question of facts and law. The issue involved in all the three writ petitions is whether after the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(in short, the Act of 1894) having been completed pursuant to passing of the Award and the rights in respect to the land vesting upon the Government, the said land could be returned back to the petitioners from whom the land was acquired.

3. The brief facts of the three cases are that the petitioners are the owners of various plots of land as specifically mentioned in the respective writ petitions. On 14/1/2000, the Officer Commanding of the 97 Road Construction Coy (GREF) issued a Communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj District intimating that the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India had already accorded approval during November 1999 for construction of parking lay byes at 11 places along NH 44 from Jowai to Churaibari. In that view of the matter, vide the said communication a request was made that land for a width ranging from 10 to 30 metres parallel to the existing NH 44 at 11 places as per Appendix A to the said communication was required to commence the work in the right spirit and at the right time in the interest of road users and public. It was also requested that the Surveyor from the department should carry out a joint survey for the purpose of the proposed alignment of the lay byes and to prepare the land/ building acquisition estimate so that the estimated amount could be deposited before commencement of the physical execution work. On the basis of the said requisition made by the 97 Road Construction Coy (GREF) a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 27/8/2003. The said land acquisition case was registered and numbered as LA Case No. 2/2002-2003.

4. Pursuant to the enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Act of 1894, the declaration under Section 6(1) was issued declaring that the land measuring 8 bighas 9 kathas 2 chataks as specified in the said declaration was required for a public purpose i.e. for construction of parking lay-byes at Patharkandi 255.90 to 256.40 kms. in Mouza Dullabpur Part-2, Pargana Pratapghar in the district of Karimganj. This declaration under Section 6 was made on various dates and the last of such date was on 5/4/2007. Thereafter the award was passed in L.A. Case No. 2/2002-2003 on 7/5/2007 and possession of the land was taken and handed over on 10/2/2008. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were paid 80% of the total compensation, however, no possession of the said land so acquired was taken. It was further contended that in the meantime, in the year 2013 the Government of Assam vide notification in LA Case No. 10/2012-13 acquired a plot of land measuring 31 bighas 10 chataks in Mouza Moina, Part-1 Pargana, Jafarganj in the district of Karimganj for the purpose of construction of Patharkandi bypass on National Highway 44 and the said construction of the bypass was at a distance of around 3 /4 kms away from the parking lay byes for which the land was acquired in LA Case No. 2002-2003. Consequently as the said land had become useless in view of the construction of the bypass at a distance, the petitioners filed representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj for return of the land so acquired in LA Case No. 2/2002-2003 and the petitioners were willing to refund the payment of compensation so received. It is also the case of the petitioners that by virtue of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Re-Settlement Act, 20