Jaipur: Bringing an end to a legal battle that began nearly four decades ago, The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a 39-year-old challenge to the acquisition of land for the Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard in Lalsot, holding that once possession of acquired land is taken and an award is passed, the land vests absolutely in the State and cannot be de-acquired or returned to its original owners.
The petitioners challenged the acquisition of 6 biswas from Khasra No. 1352, claiming they had been running a petrol pump, workshop and garage on the land since 1969. They argued that the State wrongly invoked the urgency provisions under Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, bypassed their right to object, ignored the Land Acquisition Officer’s recommendation to release the land, and relied on an invalid award. They also relied on a 1990 notification proposing de-acquisition, arguing that it entitled them to get the acquired land back.
The State, however, maintained that only the vacant 6-biswa portion had been acquired for a public purpose. It informed the Court that possession had been taken on 24 July 1986, an award was passed on 29 February 1988, and the land thereafter stood vested in the State and mutated in favour of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.
Justice Anand Sharma found no merit in the petitioners’ challenge. The Court held that establishing a Krishi Upaj Mandi is undeniably a public purpose and accepted the State’s records showing that possession had been lawfully taken.
The Court also held that the allegations of a forged award were baseless and clarified that there is no legal requirement for a land acquisition award to be published in the Official Gazette.
On the petitioners’ reliance on the 1990 de-acquisition notification, the Court held that it did not create any enforceable right. Reiterating settled Supreme Court law, the High Court observed that once acquired land vests in the State after possession is taken, the government cannot withdraw the acquisition or restore the land to its previous owner. It also held that the petitioners could not claim parity with the Allah Bux case as the facts were materially different.
Finding no illegality in the acquisition proceedings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.