Point of Law: Land Acquisition and Requisition - Once possession has been taken and land has not been utilised, there cannot be withdrawal from acquisition of any land. Land cannot be restituted to owner after stage of possession is over.

JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Matter is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The petitioners have preferred the present petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter-alia with the following prayer:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the Gata No. 89/0.560 hectare and 92/0.0492 hectare from the Land Acquisition, Village Thapkhera, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 District Magistrate, District Gautam Buddha Nagar to decide the application dated 15.02.2021 of the petitioners which is still pending.

(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioners are recorded tenure holders in respect of their land situated at Gata No. 89 area 0.0560 hectare and Gata No. 92 area 0.0492 hectare situated in village Thapkhera, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. It is stated in paragraph5 of the writ petition that applications dated 20.05.2010 and 05.06.2010 were moved by the petitioners before the Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Authority, District Gautam Buddha Nagar/respondent no. 3 stating therein that the petitioners are farmers, the land which was acquired be returned to them as has been returned by the Authority in favour of other similarly situated persons.

4. It is further stated in the writ petition that since no action was taken on the aforesaid representation, a fresh representation was made by the petitioners on 15.02.2021 before the District Magistrate, District Gautam Buddha Nagar with the same prayer.

5. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the land which was acquired by the Authorities be released in favour of the petitioners as has been done in respect of Gata No. 95, 88, 102 and 104. It is further argued that the petitioners belong to jatav caste and they are doing their farming upon this land. It is further argued that except the aforesaid land, the petitioners have no other land for farming as such the land which was acquired by the respondent be released in their favour.

6. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the respondent be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners.

7. On the other hand, it is argued by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for by them in the present petition. It is further argued that the writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It appears from perusal of the record that the land of the petitioners were acquired by the respondents. In order to release the same from Acquisition proceedings, representations were submitted by the petitioners and since no action was taken on the same, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

10. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition that when the notifications were issued by the respondent as per the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It further reveals from perusal of the record that no action whatsoever has been taken by the petitioners to release their land for more than 10 years from the date of the acquisition of land, in so far as the representations made in the year 2010 are concerned. It is clear from perusal of the remarks made on the same that the same was submitted personally with the authorities but the copies of the receiving were never provided to the petitioners. It further reveals that after more than 10 years a fresh representation was made by the petitioners on 15.02.2021 and immediately thereafter they approach this Court by filing the present petition. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ pe