Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be restored to original owners even if unutilized, as title vests with the State.

1. Petitioners’ land was acquired by respondents under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Act of 1894’) vide Award dated 27th January 2006.

2. Pursuant to the said Award, not only compensation is received by petitioners, but also the possession was taken by the respondents.

3. It appears from the submissions placed on record by the

respondent that Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Cooperation Limited (DSIIDC) have protected the land in question by putting a compound.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled for restoration of the land in question as, for more than 20 years, the respondents have not conducted any development activity on the same, and in such an eventuality, subject to petitioners being put to the condition of return of amount of compensation received by them, the land needs to be restored to them, as the respondents does not need the land for any developmental activity in public interest.

5. It is claimed that even if the land vested with respondents under the Award in question, the non-utilization of the same by the respondents for public purpose prompted the petitioners to plead for restoration of land, and they have drawn support from the provisions of Section 101 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (‘Act of 2013’).

6. As against above, the respective learned counsels appearing for respondents have strenuously opposed the said claim asserting that even if the land is acquired under the Act of 1894, there is no provision to release the land in favour of petitioners.

7. It is further claimed that even under the Act of 2013 referred to above, the land cannot be released in favour of petitioners in view of legal provision reflected in the matter of Indore Development Authority & Ors Vs. Manohar Lal & Ors 2020 8 SCC 129.

8. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahadeo (dead) through LRs & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh with connected matters, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 524.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph nos.14 and 15 of the said judgment observed thus:-

“14. There is no dispute with regard to the settled proposition of law that once the land is acquired and mandatory requirements are complied with including possession having been taken, the land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Even if some unutilised land remains, it cannot be reconveyed or reassigned to the erstwhile owner by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. This Court in Govt. of A.P. v. Syed Akbar [(2005) 1 SCC 558 : AIR 2005 SC 492] held that: (SCC p. 563, para 10)

“10. It is neither debated nor disputed as regards the valid acquisition of the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the possession of the land had been taken. By virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land has vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. In the instant case, even under Section 48 , the Government could not withdraw from acquisition or reconvey the said land to the respondent as the possession of the land had already been taken. The position of law is well settled. In State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai [(1997) 5 SCC 432] para 4 of the said judgment reads: (SCC p. 433)

‘4. In view of the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under t