(1) By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction against the respondents to return their lands which were acquired under the provisions of land acquisition act, (in short, "the act").
(2) It is not in dispute that by notification dated 11 - 7 - 1975, annexure a1, issued under section 6 of the act, the state government acquired total 159. 111 hectares of land situated at villages harnampur and sonwari, tahsil maihar, district satna. These lands were acquired for the establishment of cement factory as public purpose. The lands so acquired included, petitioners' lands bearing khasra nos. 47/1 area 0. 0773 hectares; 472/1 area 0. 073 hectares; 473/1 area 0. 554 hectares and 473/2 area 0. 554 hectares - total area 1. 954 hectares situated at village harnampur. The petitioners willingly accepted the compensation in respect of their acquired lands. The petitioners do not challenge the validity of acquisition of the lands under the provisions of the act. The lands acquired were handed over to the industries department of the state government by the revenue authorities.
(3) Out of 159. 111 hectares of the lands acquired, the cement factory surrendered 122. 9 hectares to the industries department which, in turn, decided to retain 34. 268 hectares for establishment and development of industrial area and returned the rest to the land owners. The lands of petitioners fell within the area of 34. 268 hectares of land retained by the state government. The petitioners vide annexure a4 sent a letter to the respondents to return their lands in the same manner as returned to other cultivators but to no avail.
(4) The learned senior advocate for the petitioners has argued that the lands of petitioners were acquired for the establishment of cement factory and as the cement factory has surrendered their lands, the same cannot be retained by the state government for any other public purpose. Relying upon the decisions of the supreme court in state of haryana and others v. Gurucharan singh and others, (2004) 12 scc 540 and b. E m. L. Employees house building co - operative society limited v. State of karnataka and others, 2005 (1) m. P. L. J. 25 : (air 2004 sc 5054) the learned senior advocate has also argued that respondents cannot act discriminately against the petitioners by not returning their lands to them when similarly acquired lands have been returned to their owners. On the other hand, the learned government advocate, relying upon the decision of the supreme court in government of andhra pradesh and another v. Syed akbar, (2005) 1 scc 558 : air 2005 sc 492 has argued that when the land is acquired for a public purpose, and the public purpose is achieved by using only a portion of the land the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. He has also submitted that after taking over the possession of petitioners' lands it vested with the state government free from all encumbrances under section 16 of the act and the state government has decided to use the same for industrial development. He has further argued that no case of discrimination is made out against the petitioners as no policy decision has been taken by the state government to return all the surrendered lands to their respective owners.
(5) The two questions which call for consideration are whether direction can be given to the respondents to return unused land to the petitioners which were duly acquired under the provisions of the act and whether the action of respondents of not returning the lands to petitioners suffers from the vice of hostile discrimination.
(6) In northern indian glass industries v. Jaswant singh and others, (2003) 1 scc 335 : air 2003 sc 234 the supreme court in paragraph 12 held that if the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the state government to take action but that did not confer any right on the land owners to ask for restitution of the land. In chandragauda ramgonda patil and another v. State of maharashtra and others, (1996) 6 scc 405 the supreme court held that the acquired land remaining unutilised was not intended to be restituted to the owner to whom adequate compensation was paid according to the market value. In c. Padma and others v. Dy. Secretary to the govt. Of t. N. And others, (1997) 2 scc 627 the supreme court held that the owner of the acquired land was not entitled to restitution of possession on the grounds that original public purpose had ceased to exist or that the land could not be used for other public purpose. Following these decisions, the supreme court recently in government of andhra pradesh and another (supra) has observed that under section 16 of the land acquisition act, the land acquired vests in the government absolutely free from all encumbrances and such a land acquired for a public purpose could be utilised for any other public purpose. It has also observed that the acquired land which is vested in the government free from all encumbrances cannot be reassigned or reconveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order. Thus, it is now well settled that if the lands are acquired for a public purpose and after that purpose was achieved, the rest of the lands could be used for any other public purpose. In the case in hand, the petitioners' land have been retained by the state government for the purposes of establishment and development of industries in that area which is also a public purpose. Accordingly, no direction can be given to the respondents to return the acquired unused lands of petitioners to them as the same have been retained for other public purpose.
(7) The petitioners have not challenged the return of the lands to other cultivators with whom they claim equality. The petitioners have also not alleged that their lands retained by the state were not really needed for the purposes of establishment and development of industries or that there was any ulterior motive in selecting their lands for retention of this public purpose. Thus the fact that the petitioners lands are needed by the state for the aforesaid public purpose whereas the lands of other cultivators are not so needed distinguishes the petitioners' case from others. The argument on the basis of equal treatment cannot, therefore, be accepted. The cases relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable. In state of haryana and others (supra) , there was a policy decision of the government to return the unused, lands to the cultivators when not needed for the public purpose for which the lands were acquired. There is no such policy decision taken by the government of madhya pradesh as was taken in the above case by the government of haryana. In b. E. M. L. House bulding co - operative society limned (supra). There was a recommendation of the land acquisition officer under section 5 - a of the act for dropping of acquisition proceedings in all the cases but that recommendation was not given effect to in respect to the respondent no. 5 in that case without showing any reasonable basis. Therefore, the discretion exercised was held to be valid. In the present case as mentioned above the fact situation is entirely different.
(8) For these reasons, i do not find any merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
Comments