IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 9582 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 24, 2010 Raj Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, 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 made two fold prayers in the instant petition. Firstly, they have sought direction to the respondents to demarcate the acquired land measuring 2 Bigha 8 Biswa 4 Biswasi out of total land measuring 4 Bigha 3 Biswa 0 Biswasi in Khasra No. 712, situated in village Basai, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It has also been prayed that the un-acquired land may be restored back to the petitioners. Another direction has been sought against the respondents to restore the possession of the un-utilised land out of the acquired land for service road. Notice of motion. CWP No. 9582 of 2010 Mr. S.S. Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on our asking. Three copies of the paper book have been handed over to him. He has stated that keeping in view the nature of the controversy, there would not be any necessity to file a written statement. According to the learned State counsel the writ petition can be disposed of by issuance of direction to the respondents for demarcation of the land separating the acquired land from the un-acquired land. In view of the fair stand taken by learned State counsel, we direct the respondents to take steps for demarcation of the land in question. In that regard a Revenue Officer may be deputed who shall identify the acquired land vis-à-vis un-acquired land. It is needless to say that the respondents would be entitled to utilise only the acquired land for the public purpose, namely, development and utilisation of land for construction of service road and laying of master services between Sector 9 and Sector 10, Gurgaon. The demarcation shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The other prayer made by the petitioners that the un- utilised land out of the acquired land may be restored back to them, cannot be accepted because the award in this case was announced on 15.7.1999 and the petitioners have accepted the compensation. Merely because a part of the acquired land has not been utilised, would not entitle the petitioners to seek restoration of that land back 2 CWP No. 9582 of 2010 to them. It is well settled that after the award and taking of possession, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances and thereafter there is no power left to give back the acquired land to its owner. The question whether the acquired land could be de- notified or restored back after the award and proceedings for taking possession under the Act has been undertaken, has already been answered by us in the cases of Joginder Singh and others v. Chandigarh Administration and others (CWP No. 7391 of 1988, decided on 23.2.2010) Jain School Society v. State of Haryana and another (CWP No. 3772 of 2010, decided on 4.3.2010) as well as by another Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) in the case of Gurkirpal Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Revenue and others (CWP No. 10511 of 2007, decided on 9.5.2008). In the above mentioned cases, after referring to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act and various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593; Lt. Governor of H.P. v. Sri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508; Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 3 SCC 1; Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India, (1997) 9 SCC 132; Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed, (2004) 4 SCC 460; Mandir Shree Sitaramji alias Shree Sitaram Bhandar v. Land 3 CWP No. 9582 of 2010 Acquisition Collector, AIR 2005 SC 3581; Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of Punjab, (1996) 4 SCC 212; Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat, AIR 1975 SC 1767; Union of India v. Jaswant Rai Kochhar, (1996) 3 SCC 491; Ravi Khullar v. Union of India, (2007) 5 SCC 231; State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Deoman Rai alias Kalal, (1990) 3 SCC 579; Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P., (1999) 2 SCC 384; S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC 10; and Northern Indian Glass Industries (supra) it has been concluded that once the land is acquired in accordance with the procedure established by law, award has been announced and the possession taken then there is no provision in the Act to de-notify the land and restore back possession to the land owners. Therefore, the second prayer made by the petitioners is rejected. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 24, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4