C.W.P.No.17851 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.17851 of 2009 Date of Decision : 08.12.2009 Daljit Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. S.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners are the land-owners, whose land was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') dated 24.2.1988 for a public purpose. An Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 25.1.1990. The amount of compensation has since been released. The petitioners have disputed the determination of the market value by seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, which have been decided by the learned Reference Court as well as in appeal by this Court. The petitioners have alleged that the land which has been acquired for a specific public purpose is not being put to that public purpose, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the release of the acquired land and the respondents be restrained from transferring the land to any third party. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. The C.W.P.No.17851 of 2009 2 Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 482, it was held to the following effect : "22. It is thus well settled legal position that the land acquired for a public purpose may be used for another public purpose on account of change or surplus thereof. The acquisition validly made does not become invalid by change of the user or change of the user in the Scheme as per the approved plan..... xxx xxx xxx .....It would not, therefore, be necessary that the original public purpose should continue to exist till the award was made and possession taken. Nor is it the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to see whether the public purpose continues to subsist. The award and possession taken do not become invalid or ultra vires the power of Land Acquisition Officer. On taking possession, it became vested in BMC free from all encumbrances including tenancy rights alleged to be held by the respondents. Possession and title validly vesting in the State, becomes absolute under Section 10 of the Act and thereafter the proceedings under the Act do not become illegal and the land cannot be revested in the owner. Only before taking possession, the Government can withdraw from inquiry under Section 45(1) of the Act or High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may quash on legal or valid grounds....." In view of the aforesaid judgment, the land cannot be claimed by the petitioners as owners, who have since received the amount of compensation. The land stands vested with the State Government as a owner thereof free from all encumbrances. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to assert that the land acquired for a public purpose shall revert back to the petitioners. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ C.W.P.No.17851 of 2009 3 petition. The same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 08.12.2009 (JORA SINGH) Vimal JUDGE