B.K. Ravichandra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Background
The appellants' family land in Bangalore was taken over by the Union government back in the 1960s under emergency defence laws, and later kept under a requisitioning law that was supposed to be temporary. Over the decades, arbitrators repeatedly fixed and re-fixed the rent-like compensation owed for the land, and courts twice found that large parts of the land had never actually been validly "acquired" (i.e., permanently taken) by the government. Even though the legal requisition period expired in 1987, the Union never gave the land back, arguing it was now surrounded by defence facilities. The Karnataka High Court agreed the family owned the land but still refused to order its return, leaving the question open indefinitely.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that requisition of private property is inherently temporary and can never be allowed to continue indefinitely, as that would amount to an unlawful expropriation by the back door. Since the Union's own courts and arbitration proceedings had already conclusively found the land was never validly acquired, and the requisition period had legally ended in 1987, the Union's continued occupation for the following 33 years was unlawful. The Court relied on precedent (Grahak Sanstha Manch, Rajendra Kumar Gupta) establishing that prolonged requisition without acquisition violates the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A. It directed the Union to hand back possession of the land within three months, while leaving the family free to separately claim updated compensation for the more recent years through arbitration.
Lesson Learnt
The government cannot hold onto private land forever simply by invoking an old "requisition" order: if it genuinely needs land permanently, it must formally and lawfully acquire it and pay compensation, and citizens can approach courts to reclaim land unlawfully retained even decades after a requisition period has technically expired.