Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CHELLUR, CJ, J, P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
M P NALINI KOLPAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL 2064/2012
Re-conveyance - Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act - Sections related to re-conveyance and procedures - The court interpreted the absence of procedural provisions for re-conveyance under the Land Acquisition Act, upholding the dismissal of the appellant's request for land reconveyance.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought to quash a government order and obtain re-conveyance of land acquired for public purpose. Previous representations and a court judgment had failed to provide the desired relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court reaffirmed that once land is legally acquired for public use, resumption of land is not an automatic process even if the public purpose ceases. No legal right for re-conveyance exists under the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues: The principal issue was whether the appellant had a legitimate claim to the re-conveyance of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and whether there were procedural grounds for such a request.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that without clear provisions for re-conveyance in the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant lacked the legal basis to claim an automatic resumption of land ownership post-acquisition.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur,CJ Appellant is before us aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. She approached the learned single Judge seeking quashing of Ext.P14 and also for a direction to the respondent-authorities to re-convey an extent of 38498 sq.ft of land in T.S.No.277/1 of Block 10, Ward 10 of Calicut Corporation to the appellant.
2. Apart from this, several representations, earlier, seems to have been filed before the respondent-authorities seeking for re-conveyance of the above mentioned land. It is also pertinent to mention that in an earlier round of litigation in W.P.(C) No.21381 of 2005, similar reliefs were sought, which ended in Judgment (Ext.P8). The only direction given in the earlier judgment was to consider her representation, which came to be considered and Ext.P14 is the order turning down her request.
Writ Appeal No.2064 of 2012
3. It is needless to say, once property is acquired in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act for any public purpose, even if such public purpose was not carried on by the authorities or discarded in between, there is no automatic resumption of the land available to the owner of the land. The State can reallocate the property or some other property for public purpose. If at all any consideration of such re- conveyance request arises, there is no procedure as such contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, as a legal right, the appellant cannot knock at the doors of this Court again and again seeking such reliefs. It is also pertinent to note that Ext.P14 came to be ordered in 2008 and the writ petition came to be filed in 2012. There is delay and laches on the part of the appellant in approaching the court. Even otherwise, for the reasons stated above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sj 11/1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
