2011 (11) TMI 793 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Obligation of the State Government to return acquired land after the purpose of acquisition is accomplished.
2. Legality of invoking urgency provisions without tangible reason.
3. Applicability of Standing Order 28 for the return of acquired land.
4. Doctrine of laches and delay in challenging the acquisition.

Summary:

1. Obligation of the State Government to return acquired land:
The primary issue was whether the State Government is obligated to return the acquired land to the owners after the purpose of acquisition is accomplished. The Supreme Court held that Paragraph 493 of the Land Administration Manual does not impose a duty on the State Government to restore the acquired land to the owners. It merely mentions that as a matter of grace, the Government is usually willing to restore agricultural and pastoral land to the owners on their refunding the amount of compensation. The Court emphasized that interpreting Paragraph 493 to mandate the return of land would be contrary to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which states that the acquired land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances.

2. Legality of invoking urgency provisions:
The appellants argued that the acquisition was illegal as the State Government invoked the urgency provisions without any tangible reason, depriving the landowners of their right to file objections u/s 5A(1) and to be heard u/s 5A(2). The Supreme Court noted that this plea was raised before the High Court but was not adequately considered. However, the Court did not find merit in this argument due to the significant delay in challenging the acquisition.

3. Applicability of Standing Order 28:
The appellants relied on Standing Order 28 and the judgment in State of Haryana v. Suraj to argue that the Respondents are duty-bound to return the acquired land. The Supreme Court distinguished the present case from Suraj, noting that in Suraj, the land was declared surplus and was to be disposed of as per Standing Order 28. In contrast, the acquired land in the present case was used for the specified public purpose and later transferred to the Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB). The Court concluded that the High Court did not err in declining the appellants' prayer for mandamus to return the land.

4. Doctrine of laches and delay in challenging the acquisition:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the appellants' challenge to the acquisition due to an unexplained delay of over three decades. The Court cited the doctrine of laches, as established in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, which allows the High Court to deny relief to a petitioner guilty of laches. The Court emphasized that the delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution was unreasonable and unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to make out a case for the issue of a mandamus to the Respondents to release the acquired land. The Court affirmed that the acquired land, once vested in the State Government, can be used for any public purpose and is not required to be returned to the original owners.