MANSUKHBHAI DHAMJIBHAI PATEL & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 01-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12S.C.R.115 
MANSUKHBHAI DHAMJIBHAI PATEL & ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 20919 of2017) 
DECEMBEROl, 2017 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition: 
B 
c 
Re-grant of acquired land - Acquisition of land owned by 
appellant - Resolution passed by the Government permitting re-
grant of land where land is considered to be of no use for public 
purpose - In view of the resolution, appellants approached the High 
Court for release of the land - High Court held that the land once 
D 
acquired for public purpose could not be re-granted to the original 
owner - On appeal, held: The policy is in violation of law - lf land 
acquired for public purpose is no longer needed for such purpose, 
the State can transfer such land but such disposal is regulated by 
doctrine of public trust - ln instant case, apart from the appellants 
having not been found entitled to re-grant of the acquired land, re-
E 
grant policy itself is against Art.14 - Policy of the State may not be 
given effect to in future - State at liberty to frame the appropriate 
policy in accordance with law for rehabilitation of the displaced 
persons who are rendered landless - Constitution of India - Art.14. 
Re: Natural .Resources Allocation (2002)10 SCC 1 -
relied on. 
V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. v. Administrative Officer 
and Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 133 : [2012] 10 SCR 603 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2012] 10 SCR 603 
(2002) 10 sec 1 
115 
referred to 
relied on 
Para 3 
Paras 
F 
G 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 20919 
B 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2016 of the High Court 
of Gujarat atAhmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 4657 of2016 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 20920 and 20921 of2017. 
Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Ms. Priyal Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, 
Advs for the Appellants. 
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms.Puja Singh, 
C 
Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Ad vs for the Respondents. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
I. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. The land of the appellants was acquired in the year 1981 for 
the purpose of construction of a dam. In the year 2011, the appellants 
approached the High Court for release of the land in view of Resolution 
of the Government dated 31.08.2001 permitting re-grant ofland where 
land is considered to be of no use for public purpose. The learned Single 
Judge directed consideration of the said prayer which was rejected. 
3. The appellants again approached the High Court. The High 
Court held that the land once acquired for public purpose could not be 
re-granted to the original owner in view of the law as laid down by this 
Court in V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. Vs. Administrative Officer 
and Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 133. The High Court concluded thus: 
"It can thus be seen that the petitioner's request for re-grant of 
the land is legally not tenable. Nothing was stated by the learned 
Single Judge in his decision dated 06.08.2015 to change this position. 
Learned Judge merely directed reconsideration of the question of 
re-grant of land. Same cannot be done de-hors the law settled by 
Supreme Court through series of judgements. Merely because 
Government agencies opined that the land is no longer needed or 
that the same can be re-granted, would not change this legal 
position". 
MANSUKHBHAI DHAMJIBHAI PATEL & ANR. v. STATE OF 
117 
GUJARAT & ORS 
4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, 
A 
the following order was passed: 
"Delay condoned. 
Issue notice to consider the validity of policy which enables 
re-grant of land vested in the State without any valid criteria and 
without applying the doctrine of public trust in the matter of disposal 
of government land". 
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the policy 
was ~made to help landless people and since the appellants were not 
landless, they are not entitled to avail of the policy. However, the policy 
was justified. 
6. We are of the view that the policy is in violation of law. The 
High Court was justified in holding that re-grant ofland is not permissible. 
B 
c 
It is " different matter if there is policy for rehabilitation for persons 
displaced by the land acquisition, in case such persons are rendered 
landless. lfland acquired for public purpose is no longer needed for such 
D 
purpose, the State can transfer such land but

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.