Raipur: Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed two connected petitions seeking the return of land acquired for Hasdeo Bango (Minimata Bango) Canal Project, ruling that non-utilisation does not give former owners an enforceable right to restoration.Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad delivered the common order on Nov 5. “Mere non-utilisation of acquired land does not confer an enforceable right on erstwhile landowners to seek restoration or reconveyance, particularly where the land has vested absolutely in the State under the 1894 Act and continues to be required for the original or allied public purposes,” the court said.The petitioners, members of a family from Kharsia in Raigarh district, owned agricultural land in Brahmanpali village. The cases involved 0.598 hectare and 0.356 hectare acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition culminated in an award on Feb 28, 2004.They challenged Collector, Raigarh’s Sept 27, 2021 order rejecting applications for the return of unutilised portions. They said the canal had been completed more than a decade earlier and relied on demarcation and enquiry reports showing substantial portions were unaffected.The petitioners invoked Section 101 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which provides for the return of land remaining unutilised for five years. Alternatively, they sought reconsideration through a reasoned order.Govt counsel argued that the land had vested absolutely in the State, irrespective of whether compensation was withdrawn, and that the 1894 Act contained no provision equivalent to Section 101. The canal had provided irrigation since 2005-06, while land along its banks was required for inspection, maintenance and supervision, he said.Following court directions on June 15, 2026, the executive engineer and Collector filed affidavits stating that open spaces on both banks were needed for inspection pathways and maintenance. Remaining portions were earmarked for possible hutments, storerooms and site offices.The court noted that the petitioners had not challenged either the acquisition or the 2004 award. Citing Supreme Court rulings, it held that Section 101 applied only to acquisitions under the 2013 Act and could not be extended to those under the 1894 Act.It said a canal project required more than the land physically occupied by the channel, and the absence of a structure did not make land surplus. Judicial review was limited to determining whether the State’s decision was mala fide, arbitrary or a colourable exercise of power.Finding no enforceable statutory right or ground to interfere with Collector’s order, the court dismissed both petitions without costs.