- (1.) This appeal is against the Judgement of the High Court dated 5-12-2000.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The lands were acquired by the Government for installation of a brick kiln for making the Bhakra Canal. The purpose for which the land was acquired was completed. The Government had framed Standing Order 28. The relevant portion of which reads as under: "When agricultural or pastoral land has been permanently acquired for public purposes by any department of the Government and is no longer required for such purposes, the disposal of it shall be guided by the general consideration mentioned in paragraphs 493-95 of the Land Administration Manual which are reproduced below: Paragraph 493 Disposal of land no longer required, where land in the permanent occupation of any departments of the Punjab Government is no longer required, it should be handed over to the Deputy Commissioner of the district, who becomes responsible for the disposal of it under the orders of the Commissioner. 'It may not, however, be permanently alienated without the previous sanction of the Government.' There is no legal bar to its being put up to auction. But as a matter of grace, the Government is usually willing to restore agricultural and pastoral land to the persons from whom it acquired it or to their heirs on their refunding the amount paid as compensation less the 15% granted for compulsory acquisition. The price may be lowered, if necessary, on account of deterioration, or enhanced in the rare case of land having been improved by the use to which the Government had put it. The improvement must be one affecting the quality of the land. The fact that the land which was unirrigated at the time of acquisition can when relinquished, be watered by a canal is not an improvement of this sort. Considering how great the rise in the market value of the land has been, the terms stated above are very liberal. It is not necessary to adopt them in their entirety where the persons concerned are remote descendants or relations of the original holders and where the circumstances of the case are at all out of the common, when for example no price, or merely a nominal price, was paid to the owner in the first instance, or when the rise in the value of land in the neighbourhood has been exceptionally large, these facts should be pointed out when referring such cases for orders so that the Government may have sufficient material before it to decide whether to offer any special terms to the heirs of the persons from whom that land was acquired." The Government passed an order dated 28-6-1977 declaring the land as surplus and directed that it be disposed of as per Standing Order 28. The order stated that priority had to be given to the landowners. The Financial Commissioner instead of disposing of the land as per Standing Order 28, passed an order dated 12-2-1990 transferring the land free of cost to the Forest Department. This order was challenged by the respondents by filing a suit.
(3.) The suit was decreed by the trial court. The appeal against that order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat. The High Court by the impugned Judgement has dismissed the second appeal.;