CWP No. 17144 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17144 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.09.2010 Bhagwan Dass and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana ….. RESPONDENT CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Gouri Karuna, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed with the following relevant prayer:- “i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-convey of the acquired agricultural land measuring 13 Kanal 12 Marlas to the petitioners as the Respondent has failed to utilize the acquired land for any public purpose for the last 40 years and physical possession is with the petitioners.” CWP No. 17144 of 2010 2 It is the case of the petitioners that their land was acquired way back in the year 1968. However, the State Authorities have failed to utilize the land for the purpose for which it was acquired and they continued to remain in possession of the said land. It is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings qua this land has become final when the Award was passed on 13.03.1970. It is also not in dispute that father of the petitioners had received compensation amount of Rs. 6,365/- on 16.05.1973. Thereafter, the petitioners have made an attempt to entangle the authorities in litigation. It appears that they have filed some civil suit claiming the relief, which is being claimed in this writ petition. Against an interim order passed by the Civil Court , they came to this Court by filing a Civil Revision No. 1958 of 2006, which was dismissed on 15.10.2007. Thereafter, they withdrew their civil suit on 11.02.2008. Then, with a view to further harass the authorities, they filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 6570 of 2009, which, after notice of motion, was dismissed on 15.02.2010. Opening lines of the order passed read thus:- “The only issue raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the land which has remained utilized after acquisition four decades ago would revert back to the erstwhile land owners or not.” Prayer of the petitioners to quash notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short' the Act') in the year 1968, it appears the same was not even pressed. The only prayer was for returning of the land, so acquired. CWP No. 17144 of 2010 3 The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the above- said writ petition on 15.02.2010, has observed as under:- “ After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that once the land has been acquired, award has been announced on 16.05.1973 and compensation stood paid to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, the land stood vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and it became absolute owner. Similar observations have been made by this Court while dismissing C.R. No. 1958 of 2006 on 15.10.2008 (R.2). The petitioner thereafter withdrew the suit on 11.2.2008 (R.4). It is well settled that once the land vested in the State Government then merely because the land has not been utilized by the Government for public purpose for which it was acquired would not result into giving the land back to the land owners. In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Governor of H.P. v. Sri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576. In para 19 of the judgment Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed as under:- “But these observations do not assist the case of the appellant. It is clearly implicit in the observations that after possession has been taken pursuant to a notification under S. 17 (1) the land is vested in the Government, and the notification cannot be cancelled under S.21 of the General Clauses Act, nor can the notification be withdrawn in exercise of the powers under S.48 of the Land Acquisition Act. CWP No. 17144 of 2010 4 Any other view would enable the State Government to circumvent the specific provision by relying upon a general power. When possession of the land is taken under S.17 (1), the land vests in the Government. There is no provision by which land statutorily vested in the Government reverts to the original owner by mere cancellation of the notification.” (emphasis added) We are further of the view that there is no bar from utilising the land for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. In case of Union of India vs. Jaswant Rai Kochhar (1996) 3 SCC 491 it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the land acquired for public purpose may be used for another purpose. In that case, the public purpose for acquisition of land was Housing Scheme and it was sought to be used for District Centre.” Not only that the claim of the petitioners to get back their land was rejected, it was further observed that the authorities be at liberty to use the land for any other purpose. To say so, reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Jaswant Rai Kochhar (supra). After waiting for about 6 months, again this writ petition has been filed with the prayer mentioned above. It appears that an attempt has been made to over-reach the Court. The petitioners, under no circumstances, can file a writ petition claiming the relief, which was earlier declined to them, when order was passed on 15.02.2010. CWP No. 17144 of 2010 5 Despite the above-said judgment having been passed, counsel for the petitioners Mrs. Gouri Karuna continued to insist that this writ petition is maintainable. We possibly cannot agree with her. Once the matter has become final, it is not open to the parties concerned to again restart the same by filing a second writ petition. If the petitioners were not satisfied, they could have availed their remedy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the requisite relief. That has not been done. Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitiones wishes to withdraw this writ petition. We are not inclined to do so, however, on insistence by the petitioners' counsel and Sh. Bhagwan Dass, petitioner No. 1, we allow the petitioners to do so subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to be deposited by the counsel for the petitioners and the petitioners with the Secretary of the Legal Services committee, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh within a period of seven days', failing which the Secretary will be at liberty to initiate the necessary proceedings. Dismissed as withdrawn. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE September 22, 2010 pj