No Time Limit To Utilize Land Acquired By State For ‘Public Purpose’, Purpose Of Acquisition Can Be Changed At Later Stage: Supreme Court

The bench further noted that the only requirement is that such land should be utilized for public purposes only and that the public purpose can change at a later stage. 

While holding that the High Court would be extremely circumspect directing to release a lawfully acquired land only on the premise that the land has not been utilized for the public purpose for which it was acquired, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta observed, “…There is no gainsaying that once the land vests in the State or its authorities, the `public purpose’ of its acquisition can be changed at a later stage. All that is required is that such land should be utilized for public purposes only. In fact, there cannot be a time limit within which the authorities are expected to utilize the acquired land. The Municipalities or such other agencies are expected to have long-term plans for regulated development of urban areas and for that purpose, certain pockets of land are required to be kept vacant as reserve pool to cater the future needs”.

Senior Advocate Manoj Swarup appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Suhaskumar Kadam appeared for the respondent.

Pursuant to which, notifications were issued while rejecting objections and the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award, and the physical possession of the acquired land was taken over in 1986. The appellant and his co-owners then preferred a Land Acquisition Reference which was even accepted thus enhancing the compensation amount.

The Dhule Municipal Corporation then, filed a Review Petition, however, the same was turned down by the Reference Court.

The appellants then served a notice on the Municipal Corporation claiming restoration of their land after the acquired land had been released by the State Government from the development. Then upon refusal of the claim by the authorities, the appellant along with his co-owners approached the High Court which dismissed the writ petition through the impugned judgment.

Thus, after perusing the material placed on record, the bench observed, “…It is not in dispute that the acquisition has attained finality and the land stands vested in the State/Municipal Corporation free from all encumbrances. There is indisputably no provision under the MRTP Act enabling the State Government to release the acquired land”.

Accordingly, the bench disposed of the matter.

Cause Title: Nandkishor Babulal Agrawal v The State of Maharashtra & Ors.