IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7149 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Hazoor Singh and ors …..petitioners vs. State of Haryana and ors …..respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: - Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to implement the Scheme published by a notification dated 18/21.9.1962 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘Act’) i.e. for construction of Kalwaheri Minor and further directing the respondents not to use the land for any other purpose other than for which it was acquired. The petitioner has also claimed the writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to de-notify the notification and release of the acquired land and not to raise forest by planting trees. Vide the Notification dated 18/21.9.1962 under Section 4 of the Act, the State Government intended to acquire CWP No. 7149 of 2011 the land mentioned therein for public purpose i.e. for construction of Kalwaheri Minor. The land intended to be acquired is in the form of strip of land measuring 20,190 feet long. Thereafter, another Notification dated 22.11.1963 under Section 6 of the Act was published. Though, the petitioner has not mentioned, but it can be inferred that the Award on account of acquisition of such land was announced and the compensation deposited. The grievance of the petitioners is that such land has not been utilized for Kalwaheri minor and now the respondents intend to use the said land for the purpose of forest. It is argued that plantation of trees on the strip of land will render the agricultural land of the petitioner as uncultivable. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Keeravani Ammal and ors 2007(9)SCC 255, to contend that the State Government can re-convey the land to the land owners on the market price. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we do not find any merit in the present petition. Once, the land is acquired for a public purpose i.e. for construction of Kalwaheri Minor, the land vests with the State Government free from all encumbrances as its owner. As an owner, the State Government is competent to use the land for any purpose which the State Government considers 2 CWP No. 7149 of 2011 appropriate. In fact, that is what has been held in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra). It is so held as under: - 11. We may also notice that once a piece of land has been duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State. The State can dispose of the property thereafter or convey it to anyone, if the land is not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, only for the market value that may be fetched for the property as on the date of conveyance. The doctrine of public trust would disable the State from giving back the property for anything less than the market value. The argument that the plantation of trees will render the remaining land as uncultivable is based upon apprehensions. The plantation of trees is the requirement of the day for the protection of the environment and to provide the green cover to the human beings. What kind of trees will be planted and whether such plantation of trees will render the remaining land of the petitioner uncultivable, cannot be examined at this stage. In respect of the argument that the State Government is bound to re-convey the land on market price is again not tenable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra) has held that if the State Government decides that the land is not required for a public purpose, the same cannot be transferred to the land owners by refund of the compensation amount. It has been held that since, the State Government is the owner, the land is a public trust, can be conveyed only on the market price. The said argument does 3 CWP No. 7149 of 2011 not arise in the present petition as the State Government has not decided to release the land. In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the present petition. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 26.4.2011 (A.N.JINDAL) preeti JUDGE 4