1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 94 of 1997 BALU RAM AND OTHERS V/S THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS Mr. SUDHEER SHARMA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. A.S.RATHORE, G.A., for the respondent Date of Order : 22.7.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MANAK LALL MOHTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellants have filed this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 8.3.1996 dismissing the writ petition. However, leaving it open to the petitioner that if the land is not required by the State then the petitioner may approach the State Government for de-acquiring the land, and that if the amount is not paid then they may approach the Government for payment of the amount. The whole long and short of the matter as pleaded in the writ petition is that during colonisation the land in question was demarcated, and then was acquired for the purpose of establishment of brick kiln in the year 1968, while no compensation was paid to the petitioners. It is 2 then alleged in para-6 that no doubt an award was made but the amount was not paid by the Irrigation Department nor was it paid to the petitioners. Case of the petitioners further is that in the year 1977-78 the work of the Irrigation Department was completed, and the brick kiln was not required by them, so the land was abandoned, and since it is not required, the petitioners submit that it should be returned back to the petitioners, and it should be entered in their names. It is alleged that in the year 1984 the Land Acquisition Officer was informed by the Executive Engineer that they do not require the land, and in the year 1993 it was informed to the petitioners that the land is not required, and has been abandoned for the last 15 years, and that no compensation is paid. It is on these factual matrix that the writ petition was filed. In our view, when admittedly the land was acquired in the year 1968, and as appears from Annexure-1 that the Award No. 60 was made on 15.12.1977, and when admittedly brick kiln was established the acquisition complete according to law as it was prevalent at that time. The petitioner may have his remedy for recovery of the amount of award by setting appropriate legal machinery into motion. That having not been done, the writ petition filed in the year 1996 was clearly bad on the ground of laches. So far as the fact that the land is no more required by the State is concerned, on that count it cannot be said either 3 that the land was not acquired, or that it should be de- acquired. The subject matter of deacquisition is covered by Section 48 of the then Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act whereunder the land could not be de-acquired after possession has been taken. In these circumstances, in the impugned order when it gives liberty to the petitioners to take proceedings for recovery of compensation, and to approach the State Government for de-acquisition, no interference is required to be made. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ( MANAK LALL MOHTA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/