Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 14060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sunita Agarwal, CJ, D.N. Ray, J
SOLANKI RAYSANGBHAI LALLUBHAIV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5878 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ruchita T Jain
For the Respondents: Government Pleader, Rituraj M Meena, Anuj K Trivedi
A company cannot continue to occupy private land indefinitely based on a temporary acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; it must either enter into a formal written lease agreement or permanently acquire the land through due process of law.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Temporary Acquisition - Restoration of Land - Under Sections 35 and 36, land acquired temporarily for a period not exceeding three years must be restored to the owner upon expiration of the term. Failure to restore the land or initiate permanent acquisition renders continued possession illegal. (Para 15, 16, 19)
(B) Property Law - Possession of Private Land - Legal Requirements - For a company to occupy private land, it must either execute a valid written lease agreement under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or acquire the land permanently through due process of law. Unilateral payment of rent without a formal agreement does not grant a right to perpetual occupation. (Para 21, 22)
Issues: Whether the respondent (ONGC) can legally continue to occupy private land in perpetuity based on a temporary acquisition that expired in the year 2000.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of temporary land acquisition and previous litigation regarding possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. challenge against perpetual occupation of land without formal permanent acquisition or lease. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. statutory obligation to restore land after the expiry of temporary acquisition under the 1894 act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. possession of private land is illegal without a written lease or permanent acquisition. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. requirement for the managing authority to clarify the intent for land restoration or acquisition. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The advance notice of the present petition has been received by Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC). However, it is intimated to us today by Ms. Vaidehi Parikh, learned advocate that Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate has been replaced by Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, learned advocate, who has now been engaged by the ONGC.
2. The petitioner herein is seeking relief in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents – ONGC to vacate the land bearing Survey No. 892 (892/1/2) situated at Mouje: Vastral, Vatva, Ahmedabad and handover peaceful and vacant possession thereof and further to deposit the arrears of rent as per the prevailing market rate from 15.03.2000 till date with interest. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner is land holder of land bearing Survey No. 892/1 (Old Block/Survey No. 892. Final Plot No. 1/2/1) admeasuring 1/27/90 sq. mtrs. located at Mouje Vastral, Vatva, Ahmedabad, which was temporarily acquired on 15.03.1997 for ONGC under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for a period of three years.
3. It is further contended in the writ petition that at the time of temporary acquisition only possession receipt dated 15.03.1997 was issued to the petitioner and as per the award for temporary acquisition for three years, the acquiring body was required to restore the land to the owner in its original condition and if the land is required to be acquired on temporary or permanent basis on the expiry of the lease period, proposal for the same was required to be forwarded well in time.
4. The contention is that the ONGC continued to occupy the land in question beyond the lease period and did not resolve the issue inspite of repeated representations made by the petitioner. As a result of it, a writ petition namely Special Civil Application No. 19638 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner wherein a statement was made on behalf of ONGC by the Chief Manager (H.R.), ONGC Limited in unequivocal terms that out of total area admeasuring 17493 sq. mtrs., ONGC was using only 4060 sq. mtrs. of land. and on account of completing the formalities of having sufficient area surrounding the well, they will be required only 4500 sq. mtrs. of the land in question. It seems that the said statement made on behalf of the ONGC, the following order was passed:-
“Shri Vasavda, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that be it encroached land or otherwise, let there be handing over the possession by ONGC of the rest of the area. Shri Nayak, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 submitted that on or before 20th October 2016, with prior intimation to the petitioners, the possession of rest of the land will be handed over. In view thereof, Shri Vasavda, learned advocate for the petitioners does not press this petition with a liberty to file afresh in case of difficulty. Matter is disposed of as not pressed with aforesaid liberty. Notice discharged. Direct service permitted.”
5. A perusal of the said order indicates that on the statement made by the learned advocate appearing for ONGC that keeping 4500 sq. mtrs. of the land required by the ONGC, the possession of rest of the land will be handed over
