If Land Acquired For Public Purpose By Paying Compensation, Delay In Utilisation Doesn't Entitle Owner To Seek Re-Conveyance: Kerala High Court

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed,

“Admittedly, the land is going to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired. Simply because there is a delay in using the land for the purpose for which it is acquired, the acquisition proceedings can not be set aside. In such a situation, the refusal to reconvey the property is not illegal.”

The petitioner had approached the Court seeking re-conveyance of his property which was acquired by the State for the construction of post office and staff quarters for the postal department. He alleged that the land was acquired in 1987 and even after so many years, the land was lying vacant. The petitioner approached the court seeking re-conveyance of the property by remitting the entire compensation amount as well as the interest to the State.

The petitioner submitted that he was entitled to re-conveyance of the property by paying the entire compensation and interest, if the land acquired for a specific purpose was not utilized. He contended that the unnecessary delay in using the land for which it was acquired was also violative of Article 300A of the Constitution.

The respondents submitted that the petitioner was paid the entire compensation, and the building permit was also obtained and construction works had also started. It was also argued that the land was not used for any non-public purpose and petitioner has no right to seek re-conveyance.

The Court relied upon the Apex Court decision in Civil Appeal No. No.7634/2023 to state that land acquired lawfully by paying compensation cannot be released on the ground that there was delay in using it for the public purpose for which it was acquired.

“The Apex Court observed that all that is required is that such land should be utilized for public purposes only. It is also held that there cannot be a time limit within which the authorities are expected to utilize the acquired land”, the Court stated.

It held that a mere delay in using the land would not be a reason for re-conveyance of the property.

“The construction of the post office building is not completed as of now. That is not a reason for re-conveying the property to the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that once the land is acquired for a public purpose and the compensation is paid to the land owner, the land owner has no right to the property.”

Additionally, the Court observed that acquisition proceedings can only be quashed when the land obtained for a public purpose was transferred to a private or corporate entity for some other purpose.

Based on the above findings, the Court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner was not entitled to reconveyance merely because there was a delay in utilizing the land acquired for public purpose.

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocate C Chandrasekharan

Counsel for the respondents: Advocate P Vijayakumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India S Manu, Government Pleader B S Syamantak

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 53

Case title: Sivaprakashan v State of Kerala

Case number: WP(C) NO. 14680 OF 2019

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment