- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to restore the possession of the land acquired by the respondents, as it is lying unused since long.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'act') was issued in respect of a huge chunk of land, including the land of the petitioner measuring an area of 0. 32 acres. THE possession of the land had been taken and Award was made. After an inordinate delay, the petitioner made an application on 27-9- 2003 stating that the land so acquired is lying unused, therefore, it may be returned to the petitioner. As no order has been passed on the said application, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the aforesaid relief. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the petitioner has deprived of his right to livelihood and the land had been acquired without any purpose, he is entitled for restoration of the same and he is willing to refund the amount, if any, received as compensation. Shri P. K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition contending that once the possession of the land is taken, it vests in State free from all encumbrances and it cannot be divested under any circumstances, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The Act provides for a mode of sale and purchase of land between the tenure-holders and the State. However, as it is against the wishes of the tenure-holder/person interested, the Act provides for solatium etc. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that once the possession of the land is taken under the provisions of the Act, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances, whatsoever, it cannot be divested. The land so acquired cannot be restored to the tenure-holder/person interested even if it is not used for the purpose it was acquired or for any other purpose. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act or Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, once the possession of the land has been taken and the land has vested in State free from all encumbrances. (Vide State of Madhya Pradesh v. V. P. Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593; Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Shri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U. P. and Ors. , AIR 1993 SC 2517; and Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. v. Shri Kishan and Ors. , (1993) 2 SCC 84 ).;