The restoration of land possession by an entity after a failed acquisition process does not preclude the landowner from seeking damages or compensation for the period of occupation, particularly when the land was used commercially and only nominal rent was paid.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the owner of the land bearing Survey No.976 situated at Vastral, District- Ahmedabad. It is stated in the writ petition that the total area admeasuring 4200 sq.mtrs. of the land in question was taken on lease basis in the year 1997 by issuing a Kabja Pavti, by respondent no.3-ONGC, for their purposes. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was assured that the land in question would be acquired on permanent basis and compensation would be paid. Inspite of repeated requests made by the petitioner thereafter, no proceeding for acquisition had been initiated.

2. The petitioner, therefore, filed the writ petition, namely, Special Civil Application No.1458 of 2016, wherein a statement was made on behalf of the ONGC, respondent no.3 therein that appropriate proceedings for acquisition of the land in question would be undertaken within a reasonable time. In view of the said statement, the petitioner made a request to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to approach the Court again in case of difÏculty. The copy of the order dated 13.10.2016 passed in the said writ petition is appended as Annexure-’A’ to the present petition.

3. It is further contended by the petitioner that after disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 22.12.2016 to the respondent-ONGC making a request to acquire the land in question permanently and pay advance compensation. Even a Notification under Section 11 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 was published on 11.5.2017, however, the acquisition proceedings were not taken further.

4. In the meantime, the respondent-ONGC remained in the consistent use of the land in question for commercial purposes by digging the well, extracting the oil and selling it in the market. It is further contended that the land in question has been brought under the Town Planning Scheme and 40% of the subject land has been deducted by the Town Planning authority.

5. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue mandamus commanding the respondent-ONGC to deposit the compensation and comply with the undertaking given by it before this Court recorded in the order dated 13.10.2016 for acquisition of the land in question.

6. In the afÏdavit of ONGC dated 11.3.2019 filed in the present petition, it is stated that after filing of the present petition, the ONGC has taken a stand that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question could not be conducted on account of objections filed by the third parties and, as such, declaration notification could not be published within the time prescribed under Section 19 of the Act, 2013. It is stated that extension of 12 months’ time was permitted by the State Government vide order dated 18.5.2018 and the period of publishing the declaration would be expiring on 18.5.2019. In the further afÏdavit filed on 27.6.2019 by the ONGC, however, it is stated that declaration notification under Section 19 has been published on 8.2.2019.

7. However, it seems that the proceedings for acquisition of the land in question has not been brought to its logical end, and in the further afÏdavit dated 23.9.2019, the ONGC has submitted that it has decided to surrender the land in question since, as per Form-F of the draft Town Planning Scheme No.106, the operational area of the land in question has been reduced. The land in question ultimately had been restored to the petitioner on 22.2.2022 and the pe