Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Deletion of Land from Acquisition Proceedings — Land Already Vested in State Under Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that once possession is taken, the land vests absolutely in the State and cannot be withdrawn, and the petition is barred by delay and laches.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 97
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, owners of land bearing Survey No. 148/1 admeasuring 81 Ares in Village Belha, Taluka Junnar, District Pune, filed a writ petition in 2000 seeking a direction to the respondents to delete their land from acquisition proceedings. The acquisition was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a notification under Section 4 issued on 30th March 1965, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on 20th October 1966. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 on 30th June 1967, and possession of the land was taken on 5th July 1967. The petitioners did not challenge the acquisition at any stage prior to filing the petition. The court noted that once possession is taken under Section 16 of the Act, the land vests absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances, and the acquisition cannot be withdrawn under Section 48. The court also observed that the petition suffered from gross delay and laches, as the petitioners waited for over 30 years to challenge the acquisition. The court dismissed the petition, holding that no relief could be granted.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Deletion of Land from Acquisition - Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Once possession of land is taken under Section 16, the land vests absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances, and the acquisition cannot be withdrawn under Section 48 - The petitioners sought deletion of their land from acquisition proceedings after the award was passed and possession was taken - Held that the land having vested in the State, no direction for deletion can be granted (Paras 1-5).

B) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - The petition was filed in 2000 challenging acquisition proceedings initiated in 1965-66 - The petitioners did not challenge the acquisition at the relevant time and waited for over 30 years - Held that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction to delete the land from acquisition proceedings after the award was passed and possession was taken, and whether the petition is maintainable after inordinate delay.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Land Acquisition Act
  • 1894
  • Section 16
  • Section 4
  • Section 6
  • Section 9
  • Section 11
  • Section 12
  • Section 31
  • Section 48
  • Writ Jurisdiction
  • Delay and Laches
  • Vested Rights
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (08) 102

Writ Petition No. 5282 of 2000

2006-08-30

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Naresh H. Patil

Shri P.S. Dani for the Petitioners, Shri V. Sonpal, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3, Shri K. Kokil h/f. Shri K. Bhaglia for Respondent Nos. 4(f), 4(d) and 5, and Ms. L. Panchakshari for Respondent Nos. 4(b), 4(d), 4(e), 4(f) and 5

Ram Haribhau Gunjal and others

State of Maharashtra and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking direction to delete land from acquisition proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Direction to respondents to delete the land bearing Survey No. 148/1 admeasuring 81 Ares from acquisition proceedings.

Filing Reason

Petitioners claimed that the acquisition proceedings were not valid and sought deletion of their land.

Previous Decisions

Award under Section 11 passed on 30th June 1967; possession taken on 5th July 1967.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction to delete the land from acquisition proceedings after the award was passed and possession was taken? Whether the petition is maintainable after inordinate delay?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the acquisition was not valid and sought deletion of their land. Respondents contended that the land had already vested in the State and the petition was barred by delay.

Ratio Decidendi

Once possession of land is taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances, and the acquisition cannot be withdrawn under Section 48. Further, a petition challenging acquisition after inordinate delay is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard. Petitioners by the present Petition are seeking direction to the Respondents to delete the land bearing Survey No. 148/1 admeasuring 81 Ares out of the acquisition proceedings. The petition is dismissed.

Procedural History

The acquisition was initiated in 1965-66 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 30th March 1965, declaration under Section 6 on 20th October 1966, award under Section 11 on 30th June 1967, and possession was taken on 5th July 1967. The petitioners filed the present writ petition in 2000 seeking deletion of their land from acquisition.

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 6, Section 9, Section 11, Section 12, Section 16, Section 31, Section 48
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Deletion of Land from Acquisition Proceedings — Land Already Vested in State Under Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that once possession is taken, the land vests absolutely i...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Transport Corporation Appeal in Pension Service Calculation Case — Past Service Period Not Countable Due to Dismissal and Settlement Terms. Reinstatement under Section 18(1) Settlement Did Not Restore Continuity of Service ...