Section 101 of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisitions under the 1894 Act.

The petitioner’s 0.146 hectare of land in Khasra No. 417 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for construction or widening of the Saddu-Dhaneli bypass road.

An award was passed on 17 May 2007, fixing compensation of ₹1,27,875, which the petitioner accepted without challenging the acquisition or award.

Alleging that the land had not been used for the purpose of acquisition, she sought a direction requiring the authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”), and stated that she was willing to refund the compensation.

Whether Section 101 of the 2013 Act applies to land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the 2013 Act came into force.

Whether alleged non-utilisation of the acquired land, coupled with the petitioner’s offer to refund compensation, entitles her to restitution or reconveyance.

Under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land that is acquired and vested in the State vests absolutely, free from all encumbrances; subsequent non-utilisation does not, by itself, entitle the former owner to restitution or reconveyance.

In Govt. of A.P. v. Syed Akbar, (2005) 1 SCC 558, relying on Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 6 SCC 405, and Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 335, the Supreme Court affirmed that acquired land may be used for another public purpose and that non-utilisation alone gives the former owner no 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 and cannot be invoked in respect of acquisitions under the 1894 Act.

The acquisition was completed under the 1894 Act, compensation was accepted, and the petitioner did not challenge the acquisition or award; accordingly, the land had vested in the State and the acquisition had attained finality.

Applying Indore Development Authority, the Court held that Section 101 could not reopen that completed acquisition. It further held that alleged non-utilisation did not restore a right to the land, and that the petitioner’s unilateral offer to refund compensation did not alter the legal consequences of vesting.

The writ petition was dismissed.