Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 877
2011 (2) PLR 564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.M. KUMAR, J.
Bhagwan Dass and others - Petitioners
Versus
Delhi Milk Scheme and another - Respondents
CWP No.6570 of 2009
Decided on: 15 .2.2010
Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG Hy.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Once land is acquired and compensation is paid, it vests in the government free from all encumbrances, and the failure to utilize the land for the intended purpose does not result in its reversion to the original owners.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Reversion of Land to Erstwhile Owners - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, Section 17 - The court discussed the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Section 4 and Section 17, and highlighted the principle that once the land is acquired and compensation is paid, the land vests in the government free from all encumbrances. The court also referred to relevant case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the reversion of land acquired for a public purpose back to the erstwhile landowners, claiming that the land had not been utilized for the intended purpose. The respondent asserted that the land had vested in the government after compensation was paid and that the petitioners had encroached upon the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that once the land is acquired and compensation is paid, it vests in the government free from all encumbrances, and the failure to utilize the land for the intended purpose does not result in its reversion to the original owners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the land acquired for a public purpose would revert back to the erstwhile landowners due to non-utilization for the intended purpose.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the land is acquired and compensation is paid, it vests in the government, and the failure to utilize the land for the intended purpose does not result in its reversion to the original owners.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as a misuse of the court process.
M.M. KUMAR, J. The only issue raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the land which has remained utilized after acquisition four decades ago would revert back to the erstwhile land owners or not. The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is for quashing notification dated 31.7.1968 (P3) issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') for acquisition of their land for a public purpose by the Government of India. The public purpose was establishment of Milk Collection and Milk Chilling Centre under the Delhi Milk Scheme. The award was announced on 13.3.1970 by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ferozepur Jhirka and the amount of compensation was duly received by the petitioners on 16.5.1973. The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondent-State of Haryana failed to establish any Milk Collection and Chilling Centre on the acquired land. Accordingly, they made a representation on 29.11.2005 (P.4) for the release of their land claiming that they have only the acquired land.
2. In the written statement filed by respondent no.2, the Sub Divisional Officer, it has been asserted that after the award the possession of the land was delivered to Delhi Milk Scheme-respondent no.1 and the land vested in the respondent-State free from all encumbrances after the payment of compensation and delivery of possession. It has been further pointed out that mutation No. 3280 was entered and sanctioned in favour of respondent no.1 (R.2) who is owner of the land in dispute. It has further been alleged that the petitioner in the year 2006 illegally and unlawfully has encroached upon the land in dispute which is illegal. Feeling aggrieved with the encroachment made by the petitioners, respondent no.1 had filed CWP No. 9870 of 2009 which has been dismissed as withdrawn on 19.8.2009 to avail the remedy available to respondent no.1 under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972.
3. In the separate written statement filed by respondent No. 1, the litigation filed by the petitioner by way of civil suit has also been referred. In the suit it was claimed that the petitioners are owner in possession of the land in question. An application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alongwith the suit was dismissed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur Jhirka on 29.9.2005 (R.1). Even the appeal filed before the Addl. District Judge failed as is evident from the perusal of order dated 16.3.2007 (R.2). Civil Revision No. 1958 of 2006 filed against the order dated 16.3.2007 was also dismissed on 15.10.2007.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that once the land has been acquired, award has been announced on 16.5.1973 and compensation stood paid to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, the land stood vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and it became absolute owner. Similar observations have been made by this Court while dismissing C.R. No.1958 of 2006 on 15.10.2008 (R.2). The petitioner thereafter withdrew the suit on 11.2.2008 (R.4). It is well settled that once the land vested in the State Government then merely because the land has not been utilized by the Government for public purpose for which it was acquired would not result into giving the land back to the land owners. In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Governor of H.P. v. Sri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576. In para 19 of the judgment Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed as under:
“But these observations do not assist the case of the appellant. It is clearly implicit in the observations that after possession has been taken pursuant to a notification under S. 17 (1) the land is vested in the Government, and the notification cannot be
