1 4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6180/2006. Heera Ram Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 13th March 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. M.C. Bhoot ] Mr. Surendra Singh ], for the petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: By way of this petition for writ, filed on 26.10.2006, the petitioner seeks the reliefs of quashing the land acquisition notification dated 13.04.1982 (Annex.1); of declaration that the land covered by the said notification does not vest in the State Government but is liable to be restored to the person from whom taken; and of directions that the respondents may hand him over possession of the land admeasuring 48 bighas and 11 biswas at village Jhalamand, Tehsil and District Jodhpur. While claiming the reliefs aforesaid, the petitioner has submitted that the land in question was acquired under the said notification dated 13.04.1982 (Annex.1) by invoking urgency clause per Section 17 (4) of the then existing Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 ('the Act of 1953') without there being actual urgency; and then, the land acquisition proceedings were completed by making an award dated 17.01.1984 (Annex.2). The petitioner has also indicated the fact that though the notification 2 was issued for acquisition of 302 bighas and 9 biswas of land but the award was made for 350 bighas of land; and some incongruity regarding measurement has also been referred but that part of the matter needs no dilatation in this order for the limited grounds on which this writ petition has been pressed on behalf of the petitioner. It has essentially been contended that the petitioner came to know from the news items that the land acquired under the said notification (Annex.1) had not been utilised by the State Government for the purpose for which it was acquired, i.e., for the purpose of establishing a sewerage treatment plant and that the land was still lying vacant without any use. It is alleged that there was no urgency in the matter nor the land in question could have been used for sewerage treatment plant; and the action of acquiring the land was nothing but a fraud on the agriculturists. It is further submitted that the Public Health Engineering Department ('PHED') for whom the said acquisition was made expressed its disinclination for the land in question and demanded the land at some other place for sewerage treatment plant and such land was indeed acquired at the other place, i.e., at village Salawas and was handed over to the PHED. It is submitted that the PHED surrendered the land in question to the State Government and in all fairness, the same should have been restored to the person from whom it was taken. A copy of the report handing over 3 possession by the PHED to the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur has been placed on record as Annexure-5. It is submitted that now the land in question is sought to be diverted for other purpose, that is, for construction of High Court building and it is contended that the land in question could not have been diverted for such other purpose, that being not in continuity or even co-related with the purpose for which it was acquired; and rather, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, the land having remained idle and having not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired for more than one year, a specific right of restoration came existing in the petitioner and the land ought to have been restored to him. The submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner remain totally bereft of substance and cannot be accepted. Looking to the scheme of the Act of 1953 as then existing; and so also the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act of 1894’), this much is clear that under Sections 16 of the said enactments, upon making of the award, the Collector concerned could take possession of the land being acquired and upon such taking of possession, the land shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. In the case of invoking of urgency clause per Sections 17 of the said enactments, on the given conditions, the Collector could, immediately after publication of the notice mentioned in Section 17(1) and with the previous 4 sanction of the Government, enter upon and take possession of such land that shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. It is an admitted position in this case that the notification under Section 17 of the Act of 1953 was issued as back as on 13.04.1982 (Annex.1) and the award was also made as back as on 17.01.1984 (Annex.2). It is also not in dispute that the concerned Land Acquisition Officer had taken over the land in possession. If thereafter, for any reason, the land in question has not been used for the professed purpose and for that matter, even if the PHED chose to hand over the land to the Urban Improvement Trust with the concurrence of the State Government and the land has been put to any other use, the petitioner could least be acceded any right to question such different use of the land. In view of the clear provisions of the statute that upon fulfillment of certain conditions, the acquired land vests absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances, any proposition suggesting a right in any person claiming interest in the land to seek restoration only because of diversion of use cannot be accepted. The submission that for the land having remained idle for some time, a right of restoration has accrued to the petitioner does not find any support from the scheme of the enactments, be it the Act of 1953 or the Act of 1894. 5 The writ petition remains bereft of substance and is hereby dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/