IMPORTANT POINT
Once land is acquired for a public purpose and compensation is paid, the landowner has no right to the property, and delay in utilizing the land for the specified purpose does not invalidate the acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

The short point to be decided in this case is that, if land is acquired for a specific purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, and if there is unnecessary delay in using the land for the purpose for which it is acquired, whether the acquisition proceedings can be quashed for that reason.

2. The petitioner was the owner in possession of 0.1241 hectares of land in survey No.291/8-9 of Perinjanam Village in Kodungalloor Taluk. The above property was acquired for the construction of a Post Office and Staff Quarters building for the postal department at the instance of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Irinjalakuda Division, Thrissur District. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated on 05.08.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.1,24,418.25/- towards the land value, Rs.5,435.20/-towards the value of improvements and structures, Rs.38,956.04/-towards solatium, and Rs.57,184/-towards 12% annual enhancement as per award dated 03.04.1987. The total amount of compensation was Rs.2,25,423.30/-. Accordingly, the initial payment was given to the petitioner on 28.03.1987. Thereafter, the property was taken into possession on 04.05.1987.

3. Dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owner applied for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the case was referred to the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, as per Judgment dated 31.07.1991 enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,500/-per Are. Based on the enhancement of compensation by the reference court, an amount of Rs.81,773/-was credited at Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. Subsequently, the further amounts were also credited in the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda on 10.09.1997 and 29.02.2000. Ext.P1 is the judgment in L.A.R. No.42/1988. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was filed before this Court and this Court disposed of the same as per Ext.P2 judgment. This Court enhanced the land value to Rs.20,000/-per Are. Based on the enhancement, payment was credited at the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda by the authority concerned on 18.10.2001. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,91,724.30/-was paid to the petitioner and the execution petition was also closed.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the original notification in the case as per the Land Acquisition Act was in the year 1983 and the property was taken possession for the construction of post office and staff quarters. It is submitted that the acquired property is in an important locality of Perinjanam Panchayath and very near to the Perinjanam centre. The property was taken into possession, about 40 years back is the submission. Even after this long period, the post office or staff quarters are not constructed is the grievance of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the acquired property is lying vacant. According to the petitioner, he is ready to remit the entire compensation and other statutory benefits received by him with interest as demanded by the State. Hence, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 for the return of the property. Since there was no response to Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 to the 2nd respondent as evident by Ext.P4(a) acknowledgment. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.12169/2017 before this Court and this Court disposed of the same directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 and P4 on merit as per Ext.P5 judgment. But, the 2nd respondent without considering the real facts rejected the claim of the petitioner for re-conveyance of the property as per Ext.P6 is the submission of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same by filing WP(C) No.13416/2018. The said case was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P7 judgment directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the State Government explaining the factual aspects of the matter and further directing the Government to pass orders in it. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation. Ext.P8 is also dismissed as per Ext.P9