SUNITA BAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 18.7.2017, whereby the claim of appellant for restoration of the land acquired, was declined for the reason that such claim suffers from gross delay and laches.

(2.) We find that the appellant cannot claim return of the land only for the reason that land has not been used for the purpose of Mandi for which it was acquired as the Mandi was constructed on the alternate land acquired. In fact, after announcing of the award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. The landowners do not get any right to ask for revesting of the land in them and to ask for restitution of the possession even if the land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. One of the earliest judgment on the issue of 'change of public purpose' is Gulam Mustafa and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1977) AIR SC 448, wherein it was held to the following effect:

(3.) Reference may be made to Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement reported as Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh and others, (2003) 1 SCC 335, where, the Court held as under:-