1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1650 of 2008 (M/S) Smt. Roshan Ara D/o late Mohd. Umar W/o Dr. Vakar Ahmad Presently R/o 11 / 7585, Atis Bazar, District Saharanpur (U.P.). Petitioner ...…………. [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Chief Secretary Dehradun. 2. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Chief Secretary, Lucknow (U.P.). 3. District Magistrate / Collector District Haridwar. 4. M/s B.H.E.L. Regd. Office at BHEL House, SIRIFORT, New Delhi, Through its C.M.D. 5. M/s B.H.E.L. Haridwar through its Executive Director. 6. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for respondents No. 1, 3 & 6. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 14.08.2008, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. A mandamus has also been sought, commanding the respondent to return the land of the petitioner, acquired by the State for Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. 4) Brief facts of the case are that the land including that of the petitioner was acquired by the State way back in the year 1961-1962, for establishing a Public Sector Undertaking – Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. The land acquired was handed over to the said Organization. The compensation also appears to have been paid to the petitioner. Now, after 40 years, the petitioner wants his land be returned, as the same remained unutilized. In view of the principle of law laid down in C. Padma Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 627, wherein it is held that after the compensation has been paid and possession has been taken over by the Government, the land of the claimant cannot be returned back to him. This Court does not find any error of law committed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in rejecting the representation of the petitioner, which she made on 22.07.2007. 5) Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Interim Relief Application No. 6207 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. September 18, 2008. H.Negi 3