9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Land acquisition proceedings, delay in approaching the court, utilization of acquired land, restoration of land to original owners, compensation amount, unjust enrichment, validity of acquisition proceedings.
In the present case, the appellant-company approached the State of Haryana for acquiring land to establish a sheet glass factory. The land in question was acquired through proceedings under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation amount was awarded to the landowners, but they sought enhancement through reference under Section 18 of the Act, leading to further appeals and litigation. The High Court eventually enhanced the compensation amount, and the respondents filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, which was allowed by the High Court, leading to the appeal by the company. The main contention raised by the appellant was the delay and laches on the part of the respondents in approaching the High Court almost 17 years after the acquisition proceedings were finalized and possession was taken. The High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings and directed restoration of the land to the respondents based on the argument that the land was not utilized for the intended purpose, leading to unjust enrichment by the appellant. The State also filed appeals challenging the High Court's decision, stating that proceedings for resumption of the land had already been initiated. The Supreme Court noted the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and the lack of explanation for the delay and laches on the part of the respondents. The Court emphasized that once the compensation was paid and possession was taken, the acquired land vested with the Government free from all encumbrances, regardless of its subsequent use. The Court cited previous judgments to support the principle that the original owner is not entitled to restitution of possession if the land is not utilized for the intended purpose after acquisition. The Court also rejected the argument that a different procedure should be followed for land acquisition by the State for a private company, as the respondents did not challenge the acquisition proceedings on that ground within a reasonable time. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents, and allowed the appeals, with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of timely challenges to acquisition proceedings and the limited rights of original owners once compensation is paid and possession is taken.
|
