Once possession is taken, acquired land vests absolutely and cannot be re-granted merely for non-use.

The petitioners, heirs of the original owner, sought re-grant or return of land bearing Survey No. 82 at Mauje Sargasan, Gandhinagar, alleging it had not been used for the purpose for which it was acquired.

The land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and an award was passed on 22 April 1971.

The petitioners made representations in 2017 and filed this writ petition in 2018, seeking return of the land or directions to decide their representations.

The original owner had not challenged the acquisition during his lifetime, and the acquisition had attained finality.

1. Whether the petitioners, as heirs of the former owner, could obtain re-grant or return of land after the acquisition had concluded and the land had vested in the State.

2. Whether Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, permitted withdrawal from the acquisition after possession had been taken and vesting under Section 16 had occurred.

Under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, upon the making of the award and taking of possession, acquired land vests absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances; the Act provides no mechanism to divest the State after such vesting.

Section 48 permits the State to withdraw from an acquisition only before possession has been taken.

Relying on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, the Court reiterated that Section 48 cannot be invoked once vesting under Section 16 is complete.

The acquisition had been completed in 1971, and the petition was brought 47 years later by the original owner’s heirs, after the original owner had not objected to the acquisition and the proceedings had attained finality.

Because the land had vested in the State under Section 16, its alleged non-use for the acquired purpose did not entitle the petitioners to its return; Section 48 was unavailable after possession and vesting.

The Court therefore regarded the requested relief as misconceived.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.