JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner is a resident of Village Badethi, Patti Barsali, Tehsil Dunda, District Uttarkashi. In the year 2017, his agricultural land was acquired for construction of Badethi-Tekhala Motor Road under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Thereafter, on 25.05.2016, petitioner made a representation to District Magistrate, Uttarkashi contending that out of the land acquired from the petitioner, part was used for construction of road and the remaining land is lying unused, since petitioner has become landless on account of acquisition of his entire land, therefore, unused land may be re-conveyed to him on payment of price as per Circle Rate, so that he may use the same for agricultural purposes. He had placed reliance on a Government Order dated 09.04.1973 in the representation.

3. The District Magistrate called a report from Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dunda. The report submitted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate was forwarded by the District Magistrate to State Government vide letter dated 28.05.2020, whereby guidance was sought from the State Government. State Government turned down proposal submitted by District Magistrate by holding that there is no provision for returning the land, acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by State Government, petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Petitioner has relied upon Government Order dated 09.04.1973 issued by State of Uttar Pradesh. The said order does not confer a right upon a tenure holder to claim re-conveyance of the land acquired from him. The said Government Order lays down guidelines to deal with different contingency altogether and petitioner's case is not covered by the said Government Order.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by District Magistrate, Uttarkashi. In para 7 of the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that the unutilized land, acquired from the petitioner, may be used for widening of the road, therefore, petitioner's request for return of the land was not acceded to.

6. Respondent no. 4 in his counter affidavit has stated in para 8 that Government Order dated 09.04.1973 is not applicable in Uttarakhand State and further that the land in question cannot be returned to the petitioner, as it would be needed for widening of the road. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, respondent no. 4 has further stated that since petitioner's land was acquired under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not under the new Act of 2013, therefore in the absence of any provision for return of the unutilized land in the old Act, petitioner's request was rightly rejected.

7. The sole question, which falls for consideration in the present case, is whether a land acquired for public purpose, under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be re-conveyed to the original owner after it has vested in the State. The issue is no longer res-integra.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs Pune Municipal Transport & others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 467, has held as under:-

“19. In a similar situation, in Gulam Mustafa & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, this Court held as under:-

“Once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the...declaration."

20. Re-iterating a similar view in C. Padma & Ors. Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627, this Court held that if by virtue of a valid acquisition of land, land stands vested in the State, thereafter, claimants are not entitled to restoration of possession on the grounds that either the original public purpose is ceased to be in operation or