Point of Law: If possession is already taken under provisions of Section 16 of 1894 Act and land having already been put to use, cannot be given back to original owner.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment & order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.418/2017, the original petitioner/writ appellant has filed this appeal.

2. The following facts can be culled out from the record of this appeal. The grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Late Nazar Uddin, was the original owner of a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha 8 Lechas situated at Village Thakuranbari, Mankachar Revenue Circle, District South Salmara Mankachar. The said land was agricultural land and was on periodic lease issued in the name of the grandfather of the present appellant. As can be seen from the record, the land in question along with other lands were sought to be acquired for the public purpose of establishment of Regulated Market at Mankachar under Notification dated 03.08.2001 issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “1894 Act” for the sake of brevity). The said case was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No.07/1995-1996. Record shows that total area of 5 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lechas were acquired for the said public purpose, which included the land belonging to the father of the appellant/original petitioner. The land acquisition proceeding so initiated under the provisions of the 1894 Act culminated into an award passed under the provisions of the 1894 Act, wherein the land belonging to the predecessor of the appellant was valued at Rs.62,450.18. The award came to be approved in accordance with law on 12.01.2005 and the grandfather of the appellant, i.e. the predecessor in title, was paid an amount of Rs.62,450.18 on 19.12.2008. The record clearly indicates that the possession of the land under acquisition was taken over by the acquiring authority and the same was handed over to Dhubri District Regulated Market Committee. Thus, the land in question vested in the said authority free from all encumbrances, as provided under Section 16 of the 1894 Act.

3. It is the case of the appellant/original petitioner that after taking over possession in the year 2004, the entire land so acquired under the provisions of the 1894 Act for construction of the aforesaid Market was not utilized and part of the acquired land was lying unutilized. As can be seen from the record of the appeal, the appellant filed a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara Mankachar District on 10.02.2015 and another representation on 20.09.2016, interalia, praying for return of the land back to the appellant. As the land so acquired was not returned back to the appellant, the appellant preferred WP(C) No.418/2017.

4. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. -Vs-Administrative Officer & Ors., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 and in Indore Development Authority -Vs-Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and after appreciating the record of the petition and considering the fact that as the possession is already taken over under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the provisions of Section 48 of the 1894 Act would not be applicable. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the acquisition would not lapse as provided under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act” for the sake of brevity) and was pleased to dismiss the writ petition vide judgment & order dated 25.02.2022, interalia, holding that the appellant/original petitioner has no vested right to claim return of the acquired land on the ground that it was remained unutilized for about a decade after acquisition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal was filed.

5. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned standing counse