IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1634 of 2008 (M/S) Smt. Gurucharan Kaur W/o late S. Jagmohan Singh D/o late S. Gopal Singh R/o 64, Chapple Street, Meerut Cantt. U.P. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through principle Secretary Revenue, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Haridwar, District Haridwar. 3. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) through its Managing Director, BHEL, Ranipur, Distt. Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to 2 divest the land acquired by it and return it to the Petitioner as there is no public interest remained in the acquisition. ii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. iii) Award cost of the petition to the present Petitioner. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the land including that of the petitioner was acquired by the State way back in the year 1962, for establishing a Public Sector Undertaking – Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred as BHEL). It is pleaded in the writ petition that in the year 1977, a decision was taken by the State Government to return the unutilized acquired land. However, in 1984, BHEL claimed that it still requires the land (acquired and handed over to it). It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the land acquired is not utilized by the BHEL since its acquisition. 4) Apart from the fact that the petition suffers from latches, in view of the principle of law laid down in C. Padma Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 627, it doesn’t appear to be just and proper now, to direct the divesting of the land to the petitioner after the concerned tenure holder has received compensation of the land acquired, long ago. 3 5) Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed summarily, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise her grievances before the State authorities. (Interim Relief Application No. 6157 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. September 17, 2008. H.Negi