Unused Acquired Land Need Not Be Returned To Original Owners; Can Be Used For Another Public Purpose: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has refused to interfere with the acquisition of over 200 acres of land for a coal washery in the 1960s, holding that once land has been validly acquired for a public purpose and compensation has been paid, the mere fact that a portion of the land remains unused does not entitle the original landowners to reclaim it. The Court reiterated that where the original public purpose has been achieved, the land may be utilised for another public purpose.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi dismissed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of agricultural land belonging to the petitioners' ancestors.According to the petitioners, approximately 200 acres of agricultural land were acquired in 1960-61 by the then Hindustan Steel Limited for construction of a coal washery. They alleged that only meagre compensation had been paid, no rehabilitation benefits had been extended to displaced families, and more than 75 acres of the acquired land remained vacant and unused. They further claimed that BCCL had entered into an arrangement with Monet Ispat Power Energy Private Limited to construct a power plant on the vacant land. The petitioners also contended that the acquisition had been made by invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without following the procedure under Sections 4 and 5-A.The State opposed the petition, submitting that the acquisition had been completed after following the due procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. It contended that notifications under Sections 4 and 5-A had been issued, objections were invited, an award was passed and compensation had been paid.Examining the record, the High Court found that the petitioners themselves had admitted receiving compensation and that the acquisition had not been made by invoking the urgency provision. The Court observed:“Thus, it is crystal clear that the land was not acquired invoking emergent section i.e. Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and after following due procedure of law, the said acquisition has been made.”The Court further noted that although the petitioners questioned the validity of the award produced by BCCL through a supplementary counter affidavit, they had chosen not to challenge the award despite being granted time to examine it. The Bench also rejected the argument based on continued issuance of rent receipts, observing that such receipts by themselves do not establish title over the land.On the contention that a substantial portion of the acquired land remained unused, the Court relied on the Supreme Court;s decision in State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, reiterating:“...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.”The Court further noted that if no public purpose remained, the land ought to be disposed of through public auction rather than returned to the erstwhile owners.Rejecting the allegation that the land had been transferred to a private company, the Court found that it had “not been transferred to M/s Monet Ispat and Energy Limited and only contract was given” to the company by BCCL for building, operating and maintaining the Pathardih Coal Washery.The Bench also held that once land has been acquired by the State after following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act does not operate as a bar to such acquisition.Finding that the acquisition had been completed after following due procedure, that compensation had admittedly been paid, and that no illegality had been established, the Court held that no case for interference was made out and dismissed the writ petition.Case Title: Deepak Kumar Mahato and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 6048 of 2013Appearance: Mr. Mahesh Tewari and Mr. Shwetang Kumar Tiwari for the Petitioners. Mr. Rohitashya Roy and Mr. Ashwini Bhushan for the State. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah for BCCLClick Here To Read/Download Order

Unused Acquired Land Need Not Be Returned To Original Owners; Can Be Used For Another Public Purpose: Jharkhand High Court

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

Unused Acquired Land Need Not Be Returned To Original Owners; Can Be Used For Another Public Purpose: Jharkhand High Court

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers