Acquistion land unused for last 40 years

Defence requirement cannot be questioned if it lies unused, particularly because you ahve stated that hey have constructed nearby; i.e. they may have made a plan in which certain construction is carried out before others and some areas are left vacant also.

But not following Court orders is wrong and you can file a suit for recovery of dues with interest and penalty, etc. Also, in case the Defence does not require the land and plan to transfer it to any other person, you can claim taht they should give it back to you.

S Jadhav

YOU CAN FILE A PETITION ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS AND GET BACK THE LAND. Govt. cannot change purpose of acquired land: SC October 05, 2011 Land acquired by Government or its instrumentalities for a specific public purpose cannot be changed and transferred to private individuals or corporate bodies, the Supreme Court has held. A bench of justices G S Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya said though Government enjoys power of “eminent domain” to compulsorily acquire any land for public purpose, yet,it cannot legitimise any fraudulent act of the authorities. “The Courts have repeatedly held that in exercise of its power of eminent domain, the State can compulsorily acquire land of the private persons but this proposition cannot be over-stretched to legitimise a patently illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken for depriving the landowners of their constitutional right to property with a view to favour private persons,” Justice Singhvi writing the judgement said. The apex court passed the judgement while dismissing the appeal of certain corporate houses challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash the acquisition proceedings of over 37 acres of land in south Bangalore. The Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation had acquired the private land through the State Government for the ostensible purpose of a Golf-cum-Hotel Resort. However, instead of constructing the resort, it chose to transfer the land to a private real estate developer for a group housing project; and also other corporate houses. Aggrieved by the decision, the private land owners approached the high court which quashed the acquisition proceedings and directed that the land be restored to the original owners. The land owners were also asked to return the compensation received by them at the time of acquisition.

The case Mr. Patil has quoted wherein  Supreme Court had decided that the Governemtn cannot acquire property from private persons for one public purpose and then transfer it to another private party. The property in KArnataka was ordered to be returned back to the original owners(who had to pay back the compensation amounts).

However, in this case, the Defence has taken over the land for their own use and have not handed it over or trying to hand over the same to any other private party. As stated earlier, the defence may plan to use the same or keep it vacant for some purpose.

You may if you wish requesr\t to know if they plan to use the same or not and apply for it to be returned in case they do not wish to use it. You may not have a right to know what they may use the land for in future and you cannot question if they say that they have a plan as it is a defence matter and not open to RTI. (But you mau ask them if they wish to use it for some purpose.

S Jadhav