Once land is validly acquired, it vests in the State, and the original owner loses all rights over the property, including any claim for restitution, regardless of subsequent non-utilization.

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The issues presented before us in this appeal are not novel and have, in fact, been considered and answered several times in the past. The question that arises for consideration is whether the owner of a land that has been acquired as per the applicable law can be sought to be restituted or returned on any ground particularly because the purpose for which such action was taken has become impossible or redundant.

2. We will first state the most essential facts:

3. The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge because, her prayers in WP(C)No.7466/2014 have been rejected.

4. The appellant points out that, what she has sought for in the Writ Petition was a declaration that the land acquired from her for the purpose of the ‘Kallada Irrigation Project’ (KIP) has been done without following due process; with a further plea that Ext.P2 Government Order be quashed, as being contrary to ‘legislative policy’. She makes an adscititious plea, that the 1^st respondent – State of Kerala, be directed to re-convey the land acquired from her, for the singular reason that the purpose for which it was acquired has been given up, or has not fructified, even after more than 37 years.

5. Sri.B.Vinod – learned counsel for the appellant, conceded that his client had, at no point of time, challenged the acquisition proceedings and that it had been completed by the respondents, with the eligible compensation having been accepted by his client. He also admitted that his client never sought for enhancement. He, however, argued that the specific contention of his client is that the lands have been kept by the Authorities idle, making them a haven for antisocial and deleterious activities, thus having become a nuisance to the society as a whole. He argued that, in such circumstances, the Authorities ought to have transferred the property back to his client, or to have given her the option to surrender other suitable extents; but that the impediment she faces is Ext.P2 Government Order, thus constraining her to assail that also. He prayed that the impugned judgment be, therefore, set aside.

6. Sri.T.K.Shajahan – learned Senior Government Pleader, however, submitted that, once the acquisition was completed without any demur/challenge from the appellant, the land became that of the Government; and hence, a prayer that it be reconveyed to her, is not tenable, going by the various judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, including Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai v. R.Sivasankara Mehta and Another [2011 KHC 4383] . He then argued that the allegations impelled by the appellant are not factually correct either, because the project has not been given up and a new plan has been drawn up, to use the land for the purpose of ‘KIP’. He then contended that Ext.P2 Government Order cannot be assailed by the appellant because, it is not in violation of the ‘legislative policy’, but in strict conformity with it, since it only says the land once acquired cannot be given back to the owners even if the purpose for which it had been acquired has not fructified, but can be used for other public purposes, as may be necessary.

7. We notice from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge has not entered into the merits of the matter, but has dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the acquisition of the property had become final, without any further residual rights over the land remaining in favour of the appellant. The ratiocination in the judgment unmistakably is that,