AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Liberhan and M.L. Koul, JJ.—Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that some of the land acquired has been released by taking back the compensation but the same treatment is denied to the petitioners. It amounts to discrimination. We find no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel further contends that though the land was acquired and vested in the Government but it has not been utilized. It is well established by a catena of authorities that non-utilization of the land for the purpose for which it was acquired by itself does not vest any right in the petitioners to challenge the acquisition after almost three decades of the acquisition. Petition-suffers from laches. Petitioners having accepted and enjoyed the compensation for such a long period cannot be permitted to turn round and claim as a matter of right the Return of the land when the land prices have risen astronomically. The acquired land on its possession being taken by the State vests in it free from all encumbrances. Even u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, State can not denotify it or release from acquisition. Return of it may be the discretion of the Govt. which cannot be enforced in writ jurisdiction.
No ground to interfere. Dismissed.