Land acquired by authorities can’t be returned to owner: HC

In case of land acquired under the 2013 law, land that remains unutilised for five years can be returned to the original owner.

Land that has been once acquired by an authority following relevant statutory provision can’t be returned to the owner on the argument that the land was no more required by the said authority, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled.

“Petitioners’ lands have been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 read with provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Petitioners’ lands in question, thus, vested in the respondents on 11.12.2020. Notwithstanding this vestment under Section 3D of the National Highways Act even the award under the provisions of Section 3(G) & (H) of the Act was passed on 15.03.2021. The award presupposes taking over of possession of lands in question by the respondents in terms of Section 3(E) of the Act. Viewing from any angle, there is no escape from the conclusion that lands of petitioners stood completely vested in the respondents. There is no provision which permits divesting of land as is requested by the respondents in their reply,” the HC said.

In the Sukh Dev and Others versus Union of India and Others case, the dispute pertained to a case where the NHAI had acquired land but had failed to pay compensation for it. It then tried to return the land to the owner saying the land was surplus. Ordering the NHAI to release the compensation amount to the petitioners in terms of the award in four weeks from the order, the single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua went by the precedent set by India’s apex court.

In 2010, the Supreme Court had ruled that the government cannot be compelled to reconvey the land to the original owner if the same can be utilised for any public purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. In another ruling in 2016, the apex court also said that authorities can return the land to the original owner in case its transfer to a third party leads to profiteering.

“Entertaining an application for releasing land in favour of the builder who comes into the picture after acquisition notification and release of land to such a builder is tantamount to acquisition for a private purpose. It amounts to transfer of resources of the poor for the benefit of the rich. It amounts to permitting profiteering at the cost of the livelihood and existence of a farmer,” it said.

“When the land sought to be acquired for a public purpose is allowed to be transferred to private persons, any administrative action or private transaction could be held to be vitiated by fraud. There is no legal sanction for such action,” it added.

In case of land acquired under the 2013 law, land that remains unutilised for five years can be returned to the original owner. Section 101 of the 2013 law says that such land “shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs”. The law also allows for enlisting the land into a government-prescribed land bank.

Was this article useful?
  • 😃 (1)
  • 😐 (0)
  • 😔 (0)

Recent Podcasts

  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 45Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 45
  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 44Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 44
  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 43Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 43
  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 42Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 42
  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 41Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 41
  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 40Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 40