Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13686
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sunita Agarwal, CJ, D.N. Ray, J
BHAILALBHAI JERAMBHAI PATELV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE SECRETARY
C/SCA/5029/2014 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5029 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kaushal H. Patel, P P Majmudar, SP Majmudar
For the Respondents: Hetal Patel, RD Dave
Land acquired under the 1894 Act vests absolutely in the State upon award and possession; subsequent non-utilization for the specific original purpose or use for another public purpose does not entitle the owner to the return of the land.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse - Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act - The provision for deemed lapse cannot be invoked where possession of the land has already been taken by the acquiring body and there is no evidence of non-payment of compensation. (Para 4)
(B) Vesting of Land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Once an award is made under Section 11 and possession is taken under Section 16, the land vests absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances; there is no provision for divesting the land except under Section 48 where possession has not been taken. (Para 5)
(C) Public Purpose - Change of Use - Land acquired for a public purpose may be utilized for another public purpose; allotment of land to prospective industries by GIDC within a notified industrial area constitutes a valid public purpose. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act or if the land should be returned due to non-utilization for the original purpose.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for land return based on the 2013 act and non-utilization of acquired land. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. section 24(2) of the 2013 act is inapplicable when possession has been taken. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. land vests absolutely in the state upon award and possession; gidc allotment is a public purpose. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. repeated challenges to concluded acquisition proceedings on grounds of non-use are unsustainable. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition. (Para 11) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, we may note that the present petition has been filed on 28.03.2014, soon after enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with effect from 01.01.2014, to seek the following reliefs :-
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions holding that the acquisition for the lands in question, for which award is passed on 17.10.2000, have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Transparency Compensation and in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;
ALTERNATIVELY
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside award dated 17.10.2000 for the lands in question (at ANNEXURE-C hereto) as well as notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for the lands in question (at ANNEXURE-A & B hereto respectively) and further be pleased to hold and declare that the action of the respondent authorities in trying to change the purpose of the lands in question of the petitioners and attempting to divest the lands in question to industrialists / corporate units is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the Constitution of India and provisions of the Act and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to return the lands in question to their concerned petitioners;
(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain status-quo with respect to lands in question and also further be pleased to direct not to disturb possession of the petitioners over the said lands in question;
(D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. As per own case of the petitioners, the acquisition notifications for the lands-in-question were published under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 09.05.1997 and 28.08.1998; respectively. The award with respect to the lands-in-question had been passed by the Collector on 17.10.2000. It is stated in the writ petition that Reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 was filed by certain persons, registered as Land Reference Case Nos. 797-880 of 2002, which came to be disposed of on 17.06.2008. However, it is not disclosed as to whether the petitioners herein had filed the Reference or not.
3. Be that as it may, the only ground to challenge the acquisition proceedings concluded in the year 2000, in the present petition filed after 14 years, is that the lands-in-question have not been utilised for the purpose for which they were initially acquired.
4. In so far as the prayer made in the writ petition about the lapse of the land acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the Act,. 2013, suffice it to say that absolutely no foundation has been laid in the writ petition to invoke the said deemed lapse provision, inasmuch as, there is a complete silence in the writ petition about the compensation received under the award of 2000 and the possession of the lands having been taken by the GIDC. From the conte
