Unused Acquired Land Cannot Be Reclaimed Once It Vests In State; Subsequent Purchasers Have No Title: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently held that once land is acquired and vests in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be returned to the erstwhile owners or subsequent purchasers even if the land remains unutilised.The Court also reiterated that subsequent purchasers have no right to challenge land acquisition proceedings and mutation entries in revenue records do not confer ownership.A single bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya dismissed a writ petition filed by purchasers seeking release of land allegedly left unused after acquisition for diversion of Jessore Road (NH-12).The petitioners claimed ownership of 26.38 decimals of land in Mouza Gouripur, North 24 Parganas, which they had purchased between 2022 and 2024 from the heirs of the original owners.The land formed part of plots acquired in the 1960s for diversion of Jessore Road under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.The petitioners contended that although 24 decimals were acquired, only 11.62 decimals were used for the road, leaving 12.38 decimals unused. They argued that under a 1969 consent order of the Calcutta High Court, surplus land after construction of the road was to be returned to the original landowners.Relying on this order, the petitioners sought a release certificate from the authorities declaring the land free from acquisition.However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the request in September 2025, holding that the land had already vested in the State.Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court.The Court noted that the 1969 consent order directing return of surplus land was confined only to the petitioners in that earlier case, and the present petitioners or their predecessors were not parties to those proceedings.The Court further found that an award had been passed in the acquisition proceedings and possession had already been taken, after which the land stood vested in the State.Referring to Supreme Court precedents including V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, the Court reiterated that once land vests in the State free from encumbrances, the former owner cannot demand its return even if the land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired.Justice Bhattacharyya observed that after vesting, the landowner ceases to have any concern with how the land is used and is entitled only to compensation unless the acquisition itself is successfully challenged.The Court also held that the petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, could not challenge the acquisition proceedings.Citing Supreme Court rulings including Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, the Court stated that purchases made after acquisition notifications do not bind the State and do not confer valid title.Rejecting the petitioners' reliance on mutation entries in revenue records, the Court reiterated that mutation serves only fiscal purposes and does not confer ownership rights.Finding no illegality in the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to return or release of the allegedly unutilised land and dismissed the writ petition.Case: Nirmal Mondal v. Union of India & Ors.Case No.: WPA 28229 of 2025Click here to read order

Unused Acquired Land Cannot Be Reclaimed Once It Vests In State; Subsequent Purchasers Have No Title: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

Tags