Delay Bars Return of Acquired Land

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the acquisition and subsequent use of land in Survey No. 210 at Village Wakad, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. The petitioners had sought return of 25.39 acres of acquired land, or in the alternative compensation, on the footing that land acquired for a public purpose was later being used for private parties.

The acquisition traced back to a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued on 9 March 1970, for establishment of a new town in the Pimpri Chinchwad area. A Section 6 declaration followed on 9 November 1972, recording the public purpose as planned development and utilization of the lands in the Pimpri Chinchwad New Township area for industrial, commercial and residential use. The award was passed on 23 September 1986, and compensation was determined. Notices were issued to the petitioners under Section 12(2), but they refused to accept the amount, which was then deposited in the Personal Ledger Account.

The record also showed that some petitioners had earlier challenged the acquisition in Writ Petition No. 3719 of 1987, which was dismissed in 1989. Their review was also dismissed. The petitioners then pursued proceedings under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and later sought further relief through Writ Petition No. 36 of 1990. The present petition was filed much later, and by amendment the petitioners added prayers for return of the land, compensation under the 2013 Act, and benefit of Government Resolutions concerning allotment of developed plots.

The court held that the reliefs could not be granted. It noted that possession of the land had been handed over on 30 May 2000, the Pimpri-Chinchwad new township had since developed, and third-party rights had been created. In that setting, the court found no basis to direct return of the land. It also rejected the alternative claim for monetary compensation introduced by amendment, and declined to consider the request for developed plots under the Government Resolutions.

The judgment refers to Supreme Court authority, including Royal Orchid Hotels Limited v. G. Jayarama Reddy, on the effect of delay and the creation of third-party rights after acquisition and development. The court applied that reasoning to the facts before it and found the petition devoid of merit.

Practical takeaway: once acquired land has been developed and third-party rights have intervened, delayed challenges to return the land or reopen compensation are unlikely to succeed.