Acquired Land Cannot Be Returned Merely Because Project Did Not Materialise: Kerala High Court Directs State to Maintain Property Despite 37 Years of Non-Use
The appellant had argued that the land acquired from her for the Kallada Irrigation Project had remained unused for over 37 years.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that land validly acquired by the State cannot be returned to the original owner merely because the project for which it was acquired has not materialised even after several decades. The Bench noting the extraordinary delay, held that since the acquisition had remained unquestioned for more than 37 years and compensation had been accepted, reopening the issue was impermissible in writ jurisdiction.
The appellant had challenged the dismissal of her writ petition by a Single Judge, contending that the land acquired from her for the Kallada Irrigation Project had remained unused for over 37 years and had allegedly become a centre for antisocial activities. Therefore, quashing of a Government Order was sought preventing reconveyance of acquired land, and restoration of the property to her or permission to surrender alternative land.
Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha while dismissing a writ appeal filed by the landowner seeking reconveyance of property acquired, observed, “As far as this particular case is concerned, the appellant expressly concedes that she had not challenged the acquisition at any point of time for the last more than 37 years and that she had, in fact, accepted the compensation without demur; and had not even sought enhancement of its value… The afore being so, the prayer of the appellant, that she be given back her land, or be offered the option of surrendering other land, is wholly untenable and cannot be even considered by us from any perspective”.
On the plea to quash the Government Order, as being contrary to legislative policy, the Bench further noted, “…we do not see how this will help the appellant because, it is only a Government Order which says that if the original purpose for which a land is acquired does not fructify, then it can be used for any other purpose of the department for which it is acquired; or otherwise, it be surrendered to the Revenue Department”.
Advocate B. Vinod appeared for the appellant and Shajahan T.K., Senior GP appeared for the respondents.
In the matter, during the arguments, counsel for the appellant conceded that the acquisition proceedings were never challenged and that the compensation had been accepted without protest. Furthermore, it was stated that no claim for enhanced compensation had been pursued by the appellant.
The State argued that once acquisition proceedings attain finality and possession is taken, the land vests absolutely in the Government. It submitted that settled Supreme Court precedent prohibits reconveyance of such land to the erstwhile owner, even if the original purpose has not been achieved. It was further contended that the irrigation project had not been abandoned and that revised plans existed for future utilisation.
The Bench agreed with the reasoning of the Single Judge that the appellant retained no residual rights after completion of acquisition. It further emphasised that restitution of land is legally impermissible once acquisition proceedings have attained finality and possession has been taken.
While referring to Gulam Mustafa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, the Bench observed that the manner in which acquired land is later used is not a concern of the original landowner.
“However, the specific imputation made by the appellant, that the land in question has turned into a hub of antisocial activities requires some attention. It is indubitable that the Government has a duty to ensure that this is not so, being its owner; and cannot leave it – if the assertions of the appellant are true – in a deserted condition, making it a haven or hub for confutative, dangerous or deleterious activities”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed, with directions to the State to maintain and put the land to proper use.
Cause Title: N. Bharathi Amma v. State of Kerala & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:19455]
Appearances:
Appellant: B. Vinod, I. V. Pramod, Advocates.
Respondents: Shajahan T.K. - Sr. GP.