Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 159
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Shamim Ahmed D/o Late Sofiuddin Ahmed – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 418 of 2017
Decided On : 25-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. D.P. Chaliha, Ms. M. Roy.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.S. Deka, Ms. S. Sarma.
Point of Law : Mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24[2] is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24[2].
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013 – Section 101 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 16 – Acquisition of Land – Compensation – Determination of - Registered sale deeds - Unutilized land - Case projected by petitioner, in brief, is that grandfather of petitioner, owned and possessed a plot of land - Subject-plot which stood in name of Late one, is covered by Dag - Subject-plot was agricultural land and periodic lease was issued in the name of Late said one - Land acquisition proceeding was drawn up under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and accordingly, a land acquisition case was initiated - A number of plots of land including subject-plot, came to be acquired for public purpose of establishing a regulated market were acquired during process - A market value for the proposed acquired land was fixed on the basis of the registered sale deeds.
Finding of the Court :
For purpose of this section, "Land Bank" means a governmental entity that focuses on conversion of Government-owned vacant, abandoned, unutilized acquired lands and tax-delinquent properties into productive use - Section 24 deals with lapse of acquisition - Section 101 deals with the return of unutilized land - Section 101 cannot be said to be applicable to an acquisition made under the 1894 Act - Provision of lapse has to be considered on its own strength and not by virtue of Section 101 though the spirit is to give back land to original owner or owners or legal heirs or to Land Bank - Return of lands is with respect to all lands acquired under 2013 Act as expression used in opening part is "When any land, acquired under this Act remains unutilized" - Lapse, on the other hand, occurs when State does not take steps in terms of Section 24[2] - Provisions of Section 101 cannot be applied to the acquisitions made under the 1894 Act - Thus, no such sustenance can be drawn from the provisions contained in Section 101 of the 2013 Act - Five years' logic has been carried into effect for the purpose of lapse and not for purpose of returning land remaining unutilized under Section 24[2] - Conclusions of the Court -In the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, there is no right vested in petitioner to claim return of acquired land even on ground that the same has remained unutilized for about a decade after acquisition - In such view of the matter, this writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed - Accordingly, same is dismissed.
Result : Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the writ petitioner seeking inter-alia a direction, in the nature of mandamus, to the respondent authorities to return the land acquired earlier from the family of the petitioner as the same is seen to be unutilized by the respondent authorities for about a decade after its acquisition.
2. The case projected by the petitioner, in brief, is that the grandfather of the petitioner, Late Nazar Uddin owned and possessed a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha 8 Lessas (02B-01K-08L) located in Village - Thakuranbari, Mankachar Revenue Circle in the present district of South Salmara - Mankachar (‘the subject-plot’ for short). The subject-plot which stood in the name of Late Nazar Uddin, is covered by Dag No. 251 and Patta No. 176. The subject-plot was agricultural land and periodic lease was issued in the name of Late Nazar Uddin.
3. By a Notification No. RLA-182/2000 dated 03.08.2001, a land acquisition proceeding was drawn up under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (since repealed) and accordingly, a land acquisition case being L.A. Case No. 07/1995-1996, was initiated. A number of plots of land including the subject-plot, came to be acquired for the public purpose of establishing a regulated market at Mankachar. Areas of 5 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lessas, in total, were acquired during the process. A market value for the proposed acquired land was fixed at Rs. 19,900/- per Bigha on the basis of the registered sale deeds. The total award estimated by the District Collector for the said areas of land measuring 5 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lessas was Rs. 1,54,000/-. Out of that amount, an amount of Rs. 62,450.18 was assessed in favour of the petitioner’s grandfather, Late Nazar Uddin.
4. The possession of the acquired land was taken in the year 2004. The State Government in the Revenue Department accorded its approval to the Award under L.A. Case no. 07/1995-1996 on 12.01.2005 vide its letter bearing No. RLA/182/2000/35. After approval of the award, the petitioner’s grandfather was paid an amount of Rs. 62,450.18 on 19.12.2008 against the subject-plot. The possession of the entire acquired areas of land were taken over by the acquiring authority and thereafter, the possession was handed over to the Dhubri District Regulated Market Committee.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that it has been noticed by him that though possession of the entire areas of land for construction of Dhubri District Regulated Market were taken over in the year 2004, the requiring authority did not utilize the entire acquired areas of land for construction of the market. As a result, a part of the acquired plot of land has been lying unutilized for a considerable length of time. The petitioner has noticed that the aforesaid unutilized part of the acquired land is being gradually encroached by some other people. The petitioner has contended that after having seen that part of the acquired land unutilized, he submitted representations before the Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara - Mankachar district, on 10.02.2015 and 20.09.2016 with a prayer to return the petitioner family’s acquired land.
6. I have heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1; and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. None has appeared for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 despite call, though they got themselves impleaded as party-respondents in the writ petition.
7. Mr. Chaliha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act 2013’ or ‘the 2013 Act’ for short). In the Act, 2013, there is a provision contained in Sectio
