IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 328 of 2008. Sukhbeer Singh S/O Sri Sher Singh and others. … Petitioners. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. A.U.Siddiqui, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. P.C.Bisht, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, 3 and 6. Mrs. Beena Pande, learned Standing Counsel U.P.Govt. for respondent no.2. Mr. V.K.Kohli, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. T.C.Pandey, Advocate for respondent No. 4&5- BHEL. Date October 26, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to return the petitioners’ land. II. Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem it and proper in the circumstances of the case. III. Award the cost of petition. A perusal of the record shows that the State Government by its Notification dated 8-2-1962 acquired the land of Mauza Ranipur, Pargana Jwalapur including the alleged land of the petitioners for establishing a Public Sector Undertaking Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. The possession of the acquired land appears to have been taken by the respondent no. 5. After a period of more than 48 years, the petitioners want to take back the land under acquisition. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5-B.H.E.L. has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has 2 already been resolved by the order dated 5-11-2008, passed in Writ Petition No. 1047 of 2008(M/S) Rakesh S/O Kishan Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein similar controversy was involved, therefore, in view of the said order dated 5-11-2008, this writ petition may be dismissed summarily. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 it is stated in clause c) of paragraph 3 that the possession of the land in question was delivered to the respondent no. 5 on 14th March, 1962 and a copy of possession certificate has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the counter affidavit. This fact has not been controverted on behalf of the petitioner. I have perused the order dated 5-11-2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.S. No. 1047 of 2008. The Apex Court in the case of C.Padma and others Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and others [(1997) 2, Supreme Court Cases, Page 627] has held that after the acquired land having vested in the State and compensation paid to the claimants, the claimants are not entitled to restitution of possession. In that case, the Apex Court has further observed that “Moreover, the question stood finally settled 32 years ago and hence the writ petition cannot be entertained after three decades on the ground that either original purpose was not public purpose or the land cannot be used for any other purpose.” In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of C.Padma and others (supra) as well as the order dated 5-11- 2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.S. No. 1047 of 2008, referred to above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed summarily. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP