IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 8521 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 11, 2010 Hukam Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. M.S. Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to release their land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was acquired for the purposes of cremation ground. 2. The admitted facts are that notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on 7.7.1998 and declaration under Section 6 was made on 6.7.1998 by invoking the urgency provision. However, there was some mistakes committed in issuing the declaration on 6.7.1998, which was corrected vide corrigendum dated 17.3.1999. The award was announced on 9.6.1999. CWP No. 8521 of 2010 3. The petitioners had earlier challenged the acquisition proceedings in CWP No. 7400 of 1999, which was dismissed on 22.5.2001. The judgment of the Division Bench has been placed on record (P-4). In support of the challenge, the petitioners had raised two pleas. Firstly, it was urged that urgency provision under Section 17 of the Act could not have been invoked because no such urgency could be seen from the record. The second ground was that the acquired land was located within the prohibited area under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (for brevity, ‘the 1903 Act’). Under Section 3 of the 1903 Act, a prohibition is engrafted on erection of any building or other structure within 1000 yards of the boundary wall of the air force unit. Both these contentions were rejected by the Division Bench by a detailed order dated 22.5.2001 and the writ petition was dismissed. It is further conceded as a fact that the petitioners have received the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, vide Award No. 3, dated 9.6.1999 and also filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court has further enhanced the amount of compensation. 4. Mr. I.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the land has remained un-utilised because no permission has been granted by the Commanding Officer of the Air Force Station for setting up a cremation ground. According to the learned counsel, the only course left with the respondents is to auction the land by holding public auction, as it has remained un-utilised for the public purpose for which it was acquired. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, AIR 1997 SC 2703. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the considered view that the instant petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be 2 CWP No. 8521 of 2010 dismissed. It has remained undisputed that the rights of the petitioners stand determined when they have earlier filed CWP No. 7400 of 1999, dismissed on 22.5.2001 (P-4). The land free from all encumbrances has vested in the State after the announcement of award and taking of possession on 9.6.1999. The question of exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act by the respondents would not arise after the announcement of award and taking of possession under Section 16. There is an imperative condition in Section 48 of the Act which provide guidance that the land cannot be released after possession is taken under Section 16 of the Act. The judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of M. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra), in fact, supports the aforesaid position when it was observed that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed then the Government cannot assign the land to the erstwhile owner. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has merely suggested one of the methods which could be adopted in a situation where the land is not needed for execution of any other public purpose. It has been held that it should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the purpose envisaged by the Directive Principles as enumerated in the Constitution. There is no mandate of law that this is the only course required to be adopted by the State. Moreover, it cannot be said that the land cannot be used for any other public purpose. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 3 CWP No. 8521 of 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 11, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4