IN THY GH COURT OF :UR1ATAQ AT A LORE Dated this the 26th day of May, 1998 BEE C RE. TWE HD ‘E Yr. JUSTLDE AJ. bADASHIVA O.2551397. BETWEEN: Siddaish, Sb Rangasasmiab, aged 5 year., residing at Ikakenahaili village, Somptus tbli, Nelainangala Taluk, ngalore RuralPist, PUPITIONER (By r’ T eshagin Rao, Advocae) AND l. The State of Kaniataaa, Departnt of Liousing, presented by its Seeretaw, Iidhana bodCtka, Bangaiore. 2 T a Dy,C aiiss 4 oner, Bangaiore Ritral T’ist,, T 1. Tower Bldg Dr Anibedi r Iod, l aloie 3 The Asst.Cozissioner Doddba1iapur subdivLsion, f.j 4 Tower Lauding, Pr, Ambedar road, Bana1ore, 4 The flee tire 0 fleer Neaaga TI nhayat e inanga a, Ba lore a ral Dr. t at. , RESPO. ENTS ti Sri n. Jrgadeesh, G.A.) WrIt Petitlo filed iner rts. ra and 27 Cot tuti f epn g tee -2- direct zesponaent_2 to denotify the land bearing Sy.No.34 of Iviakenaballi village, Sompur bli, IeThnengala taluic, Bangaoie Rural District or to regrant the same in favour of the petitioner etc. This petition coming on for prelimin 9 ry hearing in 3’ group, the court made the follouing: aVER This writ oetition is filed for a of maydaus directing the 2nd respondent to denotify the land bearing Sy.No.34, ueasuring 20 goat s, situated atMa&enahalli village, Sompura Ibbli, Nelanangala taluic, ngalore Rural Distiict or to zegrant the Sane in favour of the petitioner. 2. Thie petition is totally misconceived as there i. no rovision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (nereinafter called fthe Act’) either to denotify the land after the decliration was Issued or tc regrant the land to the original ovner, even if the land acquired for a pulic purpobe canrt cc useo br that purpose. 3. It is submitted by Sri i.R Jagadeesh, learned Govt. Advocate that possessIon of the over land in qstion las been taken/by the Government, sites have een formed and distributed to varicus compe ant Uants, In this vie of tac matte of eithor enotIf -3- the land or iegranting the same In favour of the petitioner could not arise. 4. The Suprene Court in C. PADVA & OTfERS V. SECRETARY Tc T GOVERfl:IT CF TMJL ;tu & OTHERS (1997 (2) SOC 627) held that acquired land having been vested in the State Govemnt, the claimants are not entitled to xsstitution of possession on ground that eittr origInal public purpose had ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for aw other purpose. 5. For ti reasons aforezaid, this petition fails and accoingly re)ected sri .11. JaE:adeesh, learned Govt. Advocate is permitteo to dae meet o; appe 5 rance ‘$thin four eeks. Si srtn/0o0698 7 C