Land acquired and possessed under the Act vests in State; non-utilization or revenue delays cannot divest title.

The petitioner, an 84-year-old party-in-person, challenged the land acquisition of Revenue Survey No. 506/1 in Village Chandkheda, Ahmedabad.

The land was originally owned by the petitioner’s father and was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, via an award dated August 23, 1961.

Possession was voluntarily handed over to the Western Railway on November 30, 1962.

The petitioner contended that the land remained unutilized as "Railway Waste Land" for over 49 years and that his father’s name remained in the revenue records until 2012.

The petitioner sought restoration of ownership, arguing that the Railways had changed the land's purpose from "township expansion" to "upgradation of tracks".

Notably, a previous civil suit filed by the petitioner regarding the same land was dismissed for default in 2021.

1. Whether the non-utilization of acquired land for an extended period (49 years) entitles the original owner to the restoration of ownership or the quashing of acquisition proceedings.

2. Whether the continued reflection of the original owner's name in revenue records after the award and delivery of possession creates a legal right to the property.

3. Whether a change in the specific public purpose for which the land was originally acquired invalidates the acquisition.

It is a settled legal principle that once an award is made and possession is handed over to the acquiring body, the land vests absolutely in the Government/Acquiring Body free from all encumbrances, and the Act provides no mechanism for "divesting" or returning such land to the original owner.

The court relied on the established doctrine that revenue entries are maintained solely for fiscal purposes (tax collection) and do not determine or confer right, title, or interest in the property.

The court reasoned that the acquisition reached its legal finality in 1961-1962 when the award was passed and the petitioner’s father voluntarily surrendered possession.

The petitioner’s father raised no dispute during his lifetime, and there was no evidence regarding the non-receipt of compensation.

The court dismissed the argument regarding the 49-year delay in updating revenue records, noting that the "railway padtar" (railway waste land) remark in the records sufficiently indicated the change in status, and the eventual formal entry of the Western Railway’s name in 2011-2012 was merely a correction of clerical delay.

Regarding the change of purpose, the court found it irrelevant, as once the land vests in the state for public use, the specific mode of utilization by the department does not revert ownership to the private party.

Finally, the court noted that the petitioner had already exhausted his remedy through a Civil Suit, which was dismissed in 2021.

The court affirmed that once land is legally acquired and possession is taken, the original owner loses all proprietary rights regardless of whether the land is immediately utilized or if the specific sub-purpose of the acquisition changes.

The court declined to issue any orders for the restoration of ownership or the cancellation of revenue entries in favour of the Railways.