SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1732

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
Sivakumar - Respondent
Writ Appeal No.2690 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.17540 of 2021
Decided on : 13-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellants : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader

IMPORTANT POINT
The legal principle established is that the government retains ownership and utilization rights over land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and former owners cannot claim reconveyance after compensation has been paid, especially when the acquisition process is complete.

Headnote:

RECONVEYANCE - LAND ACQUISITION - The court addressed the issue of reconveyance of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing that once land is acquired and compensation paid, the government retains the right to utilize the land for any public purpose. The court interpreted Section 48(B) of the Act, clarifying that non-utilization does not automatically grant the former owner a right to reclaim the land. The application of Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act was deemed inapplicable to completed acquisitions, reinforcing the finality of the acquisition process.

Fact of the Case:

The State challenged a writ petition order that allowed the reconveyance of land acquired for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes, arguing that the acquisition process was completed in 1990 and compensation was paid.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the learned Single Judge incorrectly applied the New Land Acquisition Act's provisions to a case where the acquisition was completed long before the Act's enactment. The court held that the government retains the right to utilize acquired land for any public purpose.

Issues: Whether the former landowner has a right to seek reconveyance of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act after compensation has been paid, and the applicability of Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act to completed acquisitions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that once land is acquired and compensation is paid, the government has the authority to use the land for any public purpose, and the former owner does not have an absolute right to reclaim the land. The provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act do not apply retroactively to completed acquisitions.

Result: The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ appeal, affirming the validity of the land acquisition process and the government's rights over the acquired land.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.29180 of 2014 dated 06.01.2015.

The State preferred the present writ appeal challenging the order dated 06.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.29180 of 2014.

2. The land belonged to the respondent was acquired for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes under the Land Acquisition Act.

3. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 26.09.1988 and six draft declaration notifications under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2227, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department dated 22.11.1989. The Competent Authority passed an award and compensation was also paid to the land owner. The process of acquisition was completed in the year 1990 and the respondent erstwhile land owner filed an application to reconvey the land under Section 48 (B) of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the land has not been utilised by the Government. Non-utilization of the acquired land per se would not provide a ground for seeking recoveyance of the land acquired. Acquired land absolutely vest with the Government and the Government is empowered to utilise the acquired lands for any other public purpose, if it is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. Once the title transferred to the Government, reconveyance is a policy decision to be taken by the Government and the erstwhile land owners, who had received compensation under the Act has no absolute right to claim reconveyance of the acquired land.

4. The writ petition was instituted mainly on the ground that the land acquisition proceedings became lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act of the year 2013. The New Land Acquisition Act and its provision have no application in respect of the acquisition already completed. The legal position was settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. Therefore, in respect of the acquisition proceedings, which were completed long back cannot be re-opened by submitting an application seeking reconveyance of the land. The learned Single Judge erroneously applied Section 24(2) of Act 30 of 2013, which has no obligation in the present case, since the acquisition proceedings were completed in the year 1990.

5. Wrong application of New Land Acquisition Act ended with an order allowing the writ petition. More-so, the respondent herein were the subsequent purchasers of the acquired land. That being the factum, We are inclined to interfere. Consequently, the order impugned dated 06.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.29180 of 2014 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top