'Land Once Acquired Can't Be Returned Even If Purpose Not Achieved': Kerala High Court Refuses Reconveyance After 37 Years
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the State cannot be directed to return the land that it acquired from a person even if the purpose of the acquisition became impossible or redundant.It, however, added that the State had a duty to maintain the land properly and put it to use as is legally mandated.The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was...
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the State cannot be directed to return the land that it acquired from a person even if the purpose of the acquisition became impossible or redundant.
It, however, added that the State had a duty to maintain the land properly and put it to use as is legally mandated.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by a land owner whose property was acquired by the State more than 37 years ago for the 'Kallada Irrigation Project' (KIP).
The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by her seeking for a declaration that the land was acquired from her without following due process. She had also sought a direction to re-convey the property acquired.
Further, she had challenged a government order, which stated that if the original purpose for which a land is acquired does not fructify, then it can be used for some other purpose or can be surrendered to the Revenue Department. The challenge was on the ground that it was contrary to legislative policy.
The Court took note of the fact that the appellant/petitioner had not challenged the acquisition in the last 37 years and had also accepted the compensation without any protest whatsoever, even for enhancement.
Thereafter, it went on to agree with the decision of the Single Bench and remarked:
“The ratiocination in the judgment unmistakably is that, once a land has become that of the Government consequent to a valid acquisition, it becomes its full owner; consequently vesting it with the right to decide the manner in which it is to be dealt with, thus legally incapacitating the appellant from seeking that it be either re-conveyed to her, or that she be given the option of surrendering alternative lands.”
Various decisions of the Apex Courts that laid down a similar ratio were cited in the judgment as well.
Next, the Court considered the averment made by the appellant that the acquired land has now become a hub of anti-social activities. It was of the opinion that the State had a duty to ensure that the acquired land is properly maintained and put to use as is statutorily and legally required.
“It is indubitable that the Government has a duty to ensure that this is not so, being its owner; and cannot leave it – if the assertions of the appellant are true – in a deserted condition, making it a haven or hub for confutative, dangerous or deleterious activities… we deem it necessary to direct the competent Authority of the Government to ensure that the lands which have been acquired are used and maintained in an apposite manner, without making it a cause of concern for the society,” the Court added.
Thus, it dismissed the appeal.
Case No: WA 944/2024
Case Title: N. Bharathi Amma v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
Counsel for the appellant: B. Vinod, I.V. Pramod
Counsel for the respondents: Shajahan T.K. – Sr. Government Pleader