IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12735 OF 1991 DATE OF DECISION: December 14 , 2010. Parties Name Bagga Singh and others ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih PRESENT: Mr. J.S.Thind, and Mr. Lal Singh Sidhu, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Petitions No. 12735 of 1991 and 8001, of 1989. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP No. 12735 of 1991. Petitioners' land was acquired way back in the year 1964 by issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act). Before finally acquiring the land in dispute, liberty was granted to the petitioners to file their objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Award was also passed thereafter. The petitioners, as per their own CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12735 OF 1991 -2- version, received compensation for the land under acquisition. It is necessary to mention that the land was acquired to construct a lake to control the flood water. This writ petition has been filed to claim restoration of land to the petitioners on a ground that it was not used for the purpose, for which it was acquired and it is lying surplus with the Government. Offer was made to refund amount of compensation deducting 15% of amount towards compulsory acquisition. Upon notice, reply was filed. In para No. 4 of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, it is specifically stated that in the acquired land, lake has been constructed by raising banks on both the sides of the land to control flood water in Ghaggar river from spreading in the area and also for irrigation purposes to store the water. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to show anything to the contrary. Be that as it may, otherwise, also once Award has been passed and compensation has been received by the land owners, the acquired land shall vest in the State and possibly it cannot be returned to the original land owner. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE December 14 , 2010. DKC