Canal Landowners Cannot Invoke Section 101 To Reclaim Allegedly Unused Land Acquired Under 1894 Act: Chhattisgarh HC

The petitioners’ lands at Village Brahmanpali were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Minimata Bango Canal Project. The acquisition culminated in an award dated 28 February 2004.

After canal construction, the petitioners sought return of portions they alleged had not been used, relying on revenue demarcation reports. The Collector rejected their claims on 27 September 2021. In these writ petitions, the petitioners challenged that rejection and sought restoration, including by invoking Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).

The Collector and Executive Engineer later filed affidavits stating that the lands were required for canal inspection, maintenance, supervision, and future departmental purposes.

Under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land acquired and taken possession of vests absolutely in the Government, free from encumbrances; mere non-utilisation does not, without an applicable statutory right, entitle the former owner to restitution or reconveyance.

In Government of A.P. v. Syed Akbar, (2005) 1 SCC 558, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that acquired land may be used for another public purpose and that non-utilisation alone does not confer a right to its return.

In Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, the Constitution Bench held that Section 101 of the 2013 Act applies to land acquired under that Act, not to acquisitions under the 1894 Act.

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority v. Dharmalingam, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 485, reiterates that non-use within a particular period does not itself justify release of lawfully acquired land, and that judicial review may examine whether the State’s decision is mala fide or arbitrary.

The acquisition was completed under the 1894 Act and the petitioners did not challenge the acquisition or award; they therefore had to establish an applicable legal right to restoration.

The Court held that Section 101 could not supply that right because it does not apply to acquisitions under the 1894 Act.

Further, the revenue demarcation reports concerning land not directly affected by the canal did not establish that the land was surplus: the canal department stated that the adjoining and remaining areas were needed for inspection, maintenance, supervision, and future operational purposes, supported by affidavits and a map.

The Court concluded that absence of the canal structure on a particular portion, even if established, did not create an enforceable right to reclaim land vested in the State.

It found no ground to interfere with the Collector’s order or to direct return of the lands. Both writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.