CWP No. 6570 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.6570 of 2009 Date of decision 15 .2.2010 Bhagwan Dass and others ... Petitioners Versus Delhi Milk Scheme and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Ashok Kaushik ,Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Palika Monga, DAG Hy. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1. 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 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. The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is for quashing notification dated 31.7.1968 (P3) issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') for acquisition of their land for a public purpose by the Government of India. The public purpose was establishment of Milk Collection and Milk Chilling Centre under the Delhi Milk Scheme. The award was announced on 13.3.1970 by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ferozepur Jhirka and the amount of compensation was duly received by the petitioners on 16.5.1973. The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondent- State of Haryana failed to establish any Milk Collection and Chilling Centre on the acquired CWP No. 6570 of 2009 2 land. Accordingly, they made a representation on 29.11.2005 (P.4) for the release of their land claiming that they have only the acquired land. In the written statement filed by respondent no.2, the Sub Divisional Officer, it has been asserted that after the award the possession of the land was delivered to Delhi Milk Scheme- respondent no.1 and the land vested in the respondent- State free from all encumbrances after the payment of compensation and delivery of possession. It has been further pointed out that mutation No. 3280 was entered and sanctioned in favour of respondent no.1 (R.2) who is owner of the land in dispute. It has further been alleged that the petitioner in the year 2006 illegally and unlawfully has encroached upon the land in dispute which is illegal. Feeling aggrieved with the encroachment made by the petitioners, respondent no.1 had filed CWP No. 9870 of 2009 which has been dismissed as withdrawn on 19.8.2009 to avail the remedy available to respondent no.1 under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land ( Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. In the separate written statement filed by respondent No. 1, the litigation filed by the petitioner by way of civil suit has also been referred. In the suit it was claimed that the petitioners are owner in possession of the land in question. An application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alongwith the suit was dismissed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Ferozepur Jhirka on 29.9.2005 (R.1). Even the appeal filed before the Addl. District Judge failed as is evident from the perusal of order dated 16.3.2007 (R.2). Civil Revision No. 1958 of 2006 filed against the order dated 16.3.2007 was also dismissed on 15.10.2007. CWP No. 6570 of 2009 3 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 16.5.1973 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 judgement 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. 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 CWP No. 6570 of 2009 4 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 v. 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. The notification could not be quashed on that account. Similar view has been taken in the case of Ravi Khullar v. Union of India (2007) 5 SCC 231 and Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P. (1999)2 SCC 384. In view of the above, we find that the instant petition is complete mis-use of the process of the Court and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 15.2.2010 Judge okg