Acquisitions Concluded Before 2013 Act Cannot Be Reopened Despite Non-Utilization of Land

The petitioners’ land was acquired by the Shivpuri Development Authority in 1995 for a development scheme under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973

The petitioners accepted the compensation awarded

In 2000, the Shivpuri Development Authority was abolished, and its assets, including the subject land, vested in the Municipal Council, Shivpuri

Nearly 30 years after the acquisition, the petitioners filed a representation before the Collector seeking restoration of the land on the grounds that it remained unutilized and the acquiring body no longer existed

The Collector rejected this application via an order dated 08.09.2022, which the petitioners challenged in this writ petition

1. Whether the non-utilization of acquired land for nearly three decades entitles the erstwhile owners to restoration of the property under Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

2. Whether the provisions of the 2013 Act can be applied retrospectively to reopen land acquisition proceedings that reached finality in 1995

3. Whether the abolition of the original acquiring authority (Shivpuri Development Authority) invalidates the acquisition or causes the land to revert to the original owners

The court primarily applied the principle of statutory vesting and the non-retrospective nature of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the "2013 Act"). It relied on Section 101 of the 2013 Act regarding the return of unutilized land and Section 24 regarding the lapse of acquisition.

Crucially, the court applied the precedent set by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others (2020) 8 SCC 129, which established that Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not revive concluded proceedings where compensation has been paid and possession taken, nor does it confer a fresh cause of action to reopen acquisitions that attained finality prior to the Act's commencement.

The court reasoned that since the acquisition was completed in 1995 and the petitioners had voluntarily accepted compensation, the title vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances.

The court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on Section 101 of the 2013 Act, stating that this provision does not have retrospective application to acquisitions concluded decades before the Act's enactment.

Regarding the abolition of the Shivpuri Development Authority, the court found that the land did not revert to the owners but remained vested in the Municipal Council as a successor-in-interest by operation of law.

Furthermore, the court noted that the petition suffered from gross delay and laches, as it was filed 28 years after the acquisition. It held that once land is statutorily vested, subsequent non-utilization does not create an enforceable right of reconveyance for the original owner.

The court affirmed that the subsequent abolition of the acquiring authority and the alleged non-utilization of land do not invalidate a completed acquisition. No relief was granted to the petitioners, and no order as to costs was made.