IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.604 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: May 05, 2011 Beas Dam Oustees Society, Punjab (Regd.), Rakree, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for 1 and 4. Mr. N.S. Bawa, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 6. Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate, for respondent No.5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Costs deposited. Replication has been filed. 2. Petitioner claims to be a society consisting of oustees, on construction of Beas Dam project. It is not in dispute that members of CWP No.604 of 2009 [2] the petitioner (Society) have already been compensated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They claim that they are entitled to allotment of 15 acres of land to each of the oustees under document Annexure P-4 i.e. proceedings of 3rd meeting of Beas Rehabilitation Committee held on 8.8.1966. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court has already considered similar issue while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.5192 of 1992 titled ‘Kuldip Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & others’ and vide judgment dated 23.11.1993 (Annexure R-2/1), has decided in the following terms:- “Both these submissions are devoid of any merit. The petitioners have not brought any material on record from which it could be inferred that a promise was made to the landowners whose land was acquired that they would be allotted land in Rajasthan. If any such promise was made at the time of acquisition of land in 1961, the same cannot be allowed to be enforced after the expiry of 32 years. The petitioners have no right, much less legal right, on the land which had been validly acquired and for which compensation had been paid to them. “The acquiring authorities can utilize the land for any purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in these writ petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.” 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has approached this Court after substantial delay, in so much as, land of the petitioner was acquired way back in 1961. CWP No.604 of 2009 [3] 5. The claim has been made by the petitioner under Annexure P-4 that relates to 1966. In so far as the petitioner claims parity, the respondents have pointed out that none of the oustees from Punjab has been allotted land in Rajasthan. Learned counsel contends that land was allotted in Rajasthan to the oustees from Himachal Pradesh and not from Punjab. 6. On a pointed query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any letter of allotment whose land was acquired under Notification Annexure P-3. 7. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the case would be covered by judgment dated 23.11.1993 (Annexure R-2/1) rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Kuldip Singh’s case (supra), portion whereof has been extracted above. 10. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) May 05, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?