Gujarat High Court
Gopalbhai Devabhai Patel & 19 vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 10 July, 2017
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8463 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA sd/
=========================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as NO
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
GOPALBHAI DEVABHAI PATEL & 19....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR ADV WITH MS M O NARSINGHANI,
ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 20
MR. DHAWAN JAYSWAL ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1 , 3
MR. KAMAL TRIVEDI, SENIOR. ADV WITH MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI,
ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 10/07/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:
Page 1 of 17HC-NIC Page 1 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT "A. Admit this Special Civil Application;l B.YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ, order or directions as the land bearing Block Nos. 43, 43P and 52 of village Magob, as also land bearing Block NO. 38, 39, 40, 41P, 43P of village Magob which was reserved for Water Distribution Center for Surat Municipal Corporation, however in view of subsequent development, the details made available under the RTI about the notification dated 4.2.2010 and 4.5.2011 Annexure D and E respectively, the land of the petitioner may be released accordingly as reservation is not now exists;
C.YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ, order or directions by directing the respondent Agency to forthwith reconsider the entire case for release of the land of the petitioner bearing Block Nos. 43, 43P and 52 of village Magob, as also land bearing Block NO. 38, 39, 40, 41P, 43P of village Magob in view of the details made available under RTI of Notification dated 4.2.2010;
D.YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow this petition by declaring that the action on the part of the respondent Corporation authority not releasing the land of the petitioner in view of subsequent notification and since the change of purpose for which it is required is bad and illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside;"
2.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present petition is the another round of litigation after having lost upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to stall the development of the lands in question needed for public purpose, by filing the present petition. It is required to be noted that earlier very petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No. 12065 of 2012 before this Court challenging the very acquisition and notification under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to land in question and eviction notices and the entire acquisition proceedings. By detailed judgment and order dated 10.4.2015 the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Page 2 of 17 HC-NIC Page 2 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Application. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal No.12936 of 2015 and by order dated 5.5.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP. That thereafter, again when efforts were made by the Surat Municipal Corporation to use the land in question for the public purpose, again petitioners have preferred present Special Civil Application for the aforesaid reliefs. In backdrop of the above facts, the present petition is required to be considered.
3.0. The facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are as under:
3.1. That on 29.02.1996 the State Government, in its Urban Development & Urban Housing Department, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 17(1)(c) of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 issued a Notification with respect to Revised Development Plan wherein lands bearing Block Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41/P and 43/P of village Magob, Tal & Dist.
Surat came to be reserved for Water Distribution Centre for Surat Municipal Corporation. That thereafter, the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to subclause(ii) of clause (a) of subsection(1) of Section 17 of the Town Planning Act, issued notification proposing to modify the above referred Draft Revised Development Plan, inter alia deleting the reservation for Water Distribution Centre and invited suggestions and objections. However, thereafter the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 17(1)(c) of the Town Planning Act Page 3 of 17 HC-NIC Page 3 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT sanctioned the Revised Development Plan without accepting the proposal to delete the reservation for Water Distribution Centre in question. It appears that in view of the extension of the limits of the area are of Surat Municipal Corporation followed by requirement of larger portion of land for Water Distribution Centre on urgent basis, on the request of Surat Municipal Corporation, State Government issued Government Resolution approving the proposal of Surat Municipal Corporation for initiating land acquisition proceedings in respect of the aforesaid Block Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41/P and 43 admeasuring 26,307 sq mtrs. That notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894) came to be published on 15.5.2010 proposing to acquire the land bearing Block Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41/P and 43 admeasuring 26,307 sq mtrs of village Magob, Tal: City, Dist. Surat for the public of "Water Distribution Centre". That in furtherance of the above, vide notification dated 4.5.2011, the State Government issued notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. It appears that in the meantime, the State Government, in its Urban Development & Urban Housing Department, in exercise of its powers conferred under the provisions of subsection(2) of Section 48 of the Town Planning Act, issued a notification sanctioning the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.64 and land bearing Block Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41/P and 43 admeasuring 26,307 sq mtrs of village Magob, Tal:
City, Dist. Surat were earmarked as final plot nos. 53, 54, 55/A, 55/B, 55/C, 56 and 57 total admeasuring 17441 sq mtr with the carving out of an area admeasuring 5746 sq mtrs, reserved as plot no.R5 for Water Distribution Centre and an area of 4394 sq mtrs as road area. The dispute in the present petition is with respect to Page 4 of 17 HC-NIC Page 4 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT the aforesaid final plots as plot nos. 53, 54, 55/A, 55/B, 55/C, 56 and 57 total admeasuring 17441 sq mtr, for which, proceedings of land acquisition are initiated by issuing the aforesaid notification as the remaining land had gone under reservation and for road under the Town Planning Scheme. That after the draft Town Planning Scheme no.64 was sanctioned, the eviction notices came to be issued under the provisions of Section 68 of the Town Planning Act r/w Rule 33 to all the affected and interested persons. At this stage, the petitioners and others preferred the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 12065 of 2012 challenging the acquisition proceedings and the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 as well as eviction notices under Section 68 of the Town Planning Act r/w Rule 34 of the Town Planning Act. That as observed herein above, by judgment and order dated 10.04.2015, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Special Civil Application and upheld the acquisition of land in question. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the meantime, Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 31.5.2013. That the petitioners herein filed Civil Application No. 6102 of 2013 in the aforesaid pending petition being SCA No. 12065 of 2012 seeking stay of the award dated 31.5.2013. That in the meantime and during the pendency of the aforesaid Special Civil Application, the Parliament enacted Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Therefore, the petitioners preferred Civil Application No. 4326 of 2014 in the aforesaid pending petition seeking amendment for challenging the validity of the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, Page 5 of 17 HC-NIC Page 5 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT 1894, by declaring the land acquisition proceedings as illegal, unconstitutional and without authority of law. That thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 10.04.2015 dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Application as well as Civil Application No. 6102 of 2013. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 5.5.2015, by which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP. Pursuant to the Resolution No. 126 of 2016 passed by the Water Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation subject to the approval of its Standing Committee, a Tender inquiry came to be floated by Surat Municipal Corporation inviting offers for construction of compound wall, office building, Security Cabin etc. for erecting hydraulic store.
That thereafter, the Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Commissioner passed a resolution bearing no. 812 of 2016 on dated 29.06.2016 approving the proposal of Pani Samity, by inter alia resolving to construct store on the above referred final plot no. 53, 54, 55/A, 55/B, 55/C, 56 and R5. That prior thereto, apprehending that, the aforesaid final plots in question which are acquired by the Surat Municipal Corporation for Water Distribution Project are not likely to be used for the purpose for which the same are acquired and apprehending that there shall be change of use of the acquired lands, the petitioners have preferred present Special Civil Application basing their case on the basis of some information received under the Right to Information Act dated 6.9.2012.
4.0. Shri Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Page 6 of 17 HC-NIC Page 6 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Advocate has appeared for Shri Dhaval Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation and Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of State Authority.
5.0. It is submitted by Shri Thakore, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that as the lands in question were acquired for "Water Distribution Centre", now the same is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired and / or same is not going to be used for the purpose for which same has been acquired and therefore, acquisition deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the petitioners have received information under the Right to Information Act, by which, the petitioners have got the information that the project which was to be established on the land in question is shifted to another land and therefore, the lands are not needed for the purpose for which they were acquired. It is submitted that at the time when earlier petition was preferred challenging the acquisition, the aforesaid ground was not submitted as at the relevant time the notification under Sections 4 and 6 were not placed on record. It is submitted that therefore, the present petition is not required to be dismissed on the ground of resjudicata and the present petition may not be dismissed on the ground of estopple and petitioners may not be estopped from challenging the acquisition proceedings on the grounds other than which were pleaded and submitted in the earlier of round of litigation.
5.1. It is submitted by Shri Thakore, learned Senior Advocate for Page 7 of 17 HC-NIC Page 7 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT the petitioners that even according to the respondent so stated in the affidavit in reply the lands in question are sought to be used for hydraulic store i.e. for the purpose other than, for which, lands in question are acquired. It is submitted that therefore, impugned acquisition / acquisition proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kataria Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 345, it is requested to admit / allow the present petition.
6.0. Present petition is vehemently opposed by Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate for the acquiring body Surat Municipal Corporation.
6.1. It is submitted by Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate that as such present petition is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court proceedings and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is submitted that earlier very petitioners preferred petition before this Court challenging the very acquisition, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court confirming the acquisition and acquisition proceedings and said order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereafter it is not open for the petitioners again to challenge the acquisition / acquisition proceedings relying upon the some information under the Right to Information Act which was already there at the time when the earlier petition was Page 8 of 17 HC-NIC Page 8 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT decided by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioners in the present proceedings have based their case on the basis of Information under the Right to Information Act dated 6.9.2012 and the cause of action is pleaded on the basis of the said communication dated 6.9.2012. It is submitted that earlier petition came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in 2015 and therefore, the said communication was already there. It is submitted that merely because some grounds were not taken in the earlier round of litigation cannot be a ground to permit the petitioner to reagitate challenge to the acquisition / acquisition proceedings again and again. It is submitted that therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata / constructive resjudicata.
6.2. It is submitted by Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate that as such the present petition has been filed solely on the surmise and conjecture and on apprehension and without any factual foundation. It is submitted that the land in question is going to be used solely for the purpose for which the same has been acquired i.e. for "Water Distribution Centre". It is submitted that earlier same was decided to be used for hydraulic store of the Surat Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that even same was to be used for hydraulic store for water distribution centre. It is submitted that it is specifically stated in the affidavit in reply / additional affidavit that acquired lands in question are needed for public purpose for which same are acquired and same are going to be used for the purpose for which they are acquired i.e. Water Distribution Centre/ Project.
Page 9 of 17HC-NIC Page 9 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT 6.3. It is submitted by Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate that as such once the lands in question are acquired under the provision of Act, 1894 and compensation is paid, the acquired land absolutely vested in the acquiring body and the Government and same may be used by the acquiring body for public purpose even can be other than the purpose for which the same has been acquired. It is submitted that as such in the present case the Surat Municipal Corporation acquiring body is in need of lands in question for Water Distribution Centre / Project and is going to be used for the purpose for which, the same has been acquired.
Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran and Another Vs. Administrative Officer and Others reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subodhchandra Gulabbhai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2001 (3) GLR 2134, it is requested to dismiss the present petition.
7.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such this is a second / successive round of litigation and having failed earlier to get the similar reliefs and after having unsuccessful in the earlier round of litigation which went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, again the petitioners have preferred present Special Civil Application virtually for the very reliefs which were earlier negatived by the Division Bench of this Court, confirmed upto Page 10 of 17 HC-NIC Page 10 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the some of the grounds were not raised in the earlier round of litigation. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties as such we are of the opinion that no additional ground are raised. Even, if it is considered that some grounds which were earlier not taken are raised now in that case also, the present petition is not required to be entertained on the ground of res judicata / constructive res judicata.
7.1. Even otherwise, we have considered the entire petition on merits and we have considered the submissions on behalf of the respective parties at length and independently.
8.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present petition has been filed for appropriate writ, direction and order to release acquire the lands as according to the petitioners and relying upon some details made available under the Right to Information Act, the lands are not required / needed for the purpose for which, the same came to be acquired i.e. Water Distribution Centre. However, it is required to be noted that for the aforesaid, the petitioners have relied upon the some information under the Right to Information Act on dated 6.9.2012, which was already there earlier when the earlier petition came to be dismissed. It is required to be noted that earlier petition being SCA No. 12065 of 2012 came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.04.2015. At that time, communication dated 06.09.2012 was already available with the petitioners. No such grievance was made earlier on the basis of information received under the Right Page 11 of 17 HC-NIC Page 11 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT to Information Act dated 06.09.2012.
8.1. Even considering the information under the Right to Information Act dated 06.09.2012, the same seems to be with respect to the proposal of the Corporation to acquire the land bearing block nos. 49/1, 57/1, 58, 59, 67, 71 paiki, 72 paiki and P 106 situated at village Punana under Section 78 of the Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act for "Water Distribution Centre". It does not seem to be with respect to lands in question which as such were already acquired much earlier vide Notification under Section 4 dated 4.2.2010 and notification under Section 6 dated 4.5.2011. Therefore, as such reliance placed upon the said communication under the Right to Information Act dated 06.09.2012 is absolutely misplaced. Even otherwise, from the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the acquired lands in question i.e. land bearing block nos. 43, 43/P and 52 of village Magob and the land bearing block nos. 38, 39, 40, 41/P and 43/P of village Magob are not required for the purpose for which same were acquired for Water Distribution Centre. It appears that only for the purpose of making out a additional ground to initiate second round of litigation, the communication which has no application has been relied upon.
8.2. Even otherwise from the pleadings and the various affidavit in replies filed on behalf of the Surat Municipal Corporation, it is specifically asserted that acquired lands in question are needed for the purpose for which they are acquired i.e. "Water Distribution Centre" and they are going to be used for the purpose for which, they are acquired i.e. Water Distribution Page 12 of 17 HC-NIC Page 12 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Centre". It appears that earlier the same was intended to be used for hydraulic department of the Surat Municipal Corporation which is also looking after "Water Distribution Centre" and same also can be said to be public purpose. However, thereafter it is made very much clear that acquired lands in question are going to be used for the purpose, for which, they are acquired i.e. Water Distribution Centre. It is reported that after receiving the physical possession of the land in question from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Surat Municipal Corporation has initiated all required steps in setting up and installing the Water Tank and other insularly units / component which are required for establishing network of water distribution on the lands so acquired for the purpose mentioned in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and are being used for the purpose for which it was acquired. It is further stated that pieces of open parcel of open lands, which are acquired for the specific purpose mentioned in the notification, the hydraulic department had already acted upon and requested the multimedia consultant to prepare detailed project report so that same can be put to use by the Surat Municipal Corporation for that very purpose of system/ network for distributing water and other water distribution related things. Therefore, it appears that the allegation made in the petition that the acquired lands in question are not needed and / or are not going to be used for the purpose for which they are acquired i.e. Water Distribution Centre has no substance and has no factual base/ foundation. The allegations seem to be absolutely on assumption, surmises and conjectures.
9.0. At this stage, the following decisions and the Page 13 of 17 HC-NIC Page 13 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decisions are required to be referred to.
9.1. At this stage, the decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran and Another (Supra) is required to be referred to. In the aforesaid decision in paragraph nos.25 to 31 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under;
25. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the land is vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested and proceedings under the Act would not lapse, even if an award is not made within the statutorily stipulated period. (Vide: Avadh Behari Yadav v. State of Bihar &. Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 31; U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (Supra); Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 424, M. Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 322; and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 492).
26. The said land, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure holders/personsinterested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was so acquired, or for any other purpose either. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, or under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, once the possession of the land has been taken and the land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. (Vide: State of Madhya Pradesh v. V.P. Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593; Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517; Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. v. Shri Kishan & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 84 and Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India v. Subodh Singh & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 100).
27. The meaning of the word 'vesting', has been considered by this Court time and again. In Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1957 SC 344, this Court held that the meaning of word 'vesting' varies as per the context of the Statute, under which the property vests. So far as the vesting under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act is concerned, the Court held as under. (AIR p.353, para 19) "19........In the cases contemplated by Sections 16 and 17, the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any condition or Page 14 of 17 HC-NIC Page 14 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT ; limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration.
28. In Gulam Mustafa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, in a similar situation, this Court held as under: (SCC p.802, para 5) "5.....Once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the &.declaration.
29. Similarly, in State of Kerala & Anr. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., (1997) 5 SCC 432, this Court held as under: (SCC p.433, para 4)
4......It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution.
(See also: C. Padma & Ors. v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627; Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 436; Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2002 SC 2532; Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 335; and Leelawanti & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 66).
30. In Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Syed Akbar (Supra), this Court considered this very issue and held that, once the land has vested in the State, it can neither be divested, by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, nor can it be reconveyed to the persons Page 15 of 17 HC-NIC Page 15 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT interested/tenure holders, and that therefore, the question of restitution of possession to the tenure holder, does not arise. (See also: Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 1296; Chandragaudaj Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 6 SCC 405; State of Kerala & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2703; Printers (Mysore) . Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 460; Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508; and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 354).
31. In view of the above, the law can be crystallized to mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of the land owner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona nongrata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to only receive compensation for the same, unless the acquisition proceeding is itself challenged. The State neither has the requisite power to re convey the land to the person interested, nor can such person claim any right of restitution on any ground, whatsoever, unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect.
9.2. Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subodhchandra Gulabbhai Desai (Supra). In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has observed that as and when the land is acquired by the Government for public purpose it can be utilized for any public purpose and once the land is acquired, it becomes vested in the Government and there is no question of any enforceable right with the original land owner in case the same is not utilized. It is further observed that as such the land may remain in the process of utilization and may be utilized by the Government or the acquiring body for whose benefits such lands are acquired and no regrant can be claimed by any party as an enforceable right before the Court of law.
Page 16 of 17HC-NIC Page 16 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017 C/SCA/8463/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition deserves to be dismissed as the same is devoid of any merit and seems to have been filed with mala fide intention to stall the use of the lands in question for the public purpose. Under the circumstances, same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged.
sd/ (M.R. SHAH, J.) sd/ (B.N. KARIA, J.) Kaushik Page 17 of 17 HC-NIC Page 17 of 17 Created On Sun Jul 23 07:38:02 IST 2017