- (1.) GRAM Panchayat of Gram Sabha Chaura Karheri Theri alias Sahib Nagar has challenged Notification No. RD-2 (139) G/54/39, dated September 11, 1956 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, for short, the Act, and declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, dated October 20, 1956 by the Government of Patiala and East Punjab States Union in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) HIS Highness the Rajpramukh of Patiala and East Punjab States Union acquired land measuring 587 Bighas and 9 Biswas, situated in village Chaura Karheri Theri alias Sahib Nagar for a public purpose, namely, construction of Yadvindra Public School at Patiala. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on September 11, 1956 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on September 11, 1956 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on October 20, 1956 specifying that the land mentioned therein was needed for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector rendered award under Section 11 of the Act on December 31, 1958. The land-owners, tenants, allottees under the Pepsu Tenancy Act and Nagar Panchayat were awarded compensation for the land acquired. The compensation was accepted by them. The land-owners, tenants, allottees and the Nagar Panchayat, were satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The possession of the acquired land was transferred to Yadvindra Public School. Yadvindra Public School obtained an absolute title to the land after it was put in possession thereof. Due to persistent demand of the public to open a Branch of the School at Mohali, it had transferred land measuring 60 acres situated at Patiala to the Punjab Housing Board in lieu of an equivalent land transferred to it at Mohali. They needed funds for the construction of the School at Mohan and for this purpose, they sold the land to Maharaj Jagat Singh Relief Society, Beas for putting it to use- for the welfare of the people for a consideration of Rs. Two Crores. The entire sale consideration was received through cheques. The challenge to the acquisition has been made through this writ petition, which was filed on August 16, 1993 by the petitioner. Apart from the facts, the petition deserves dismissal for laches and delay. There is no bar in law that beneficiaries under the acquisition cannot transfer the land to another authority. As observed earner, the land was acquired in the year, 1956 and it has been transferred after a lapse of more than 34 years for benevolent purposes. Reliance can be placed on Mangal Oram and Ors. v. State of Orissa, and Anr. A. I. R. 1977 Supreme Court, 1456, wherein it was held thus: "the contention which was advanced before the High Court and has been repeated before us with a view to challenge the validity of the acquisition of this land in that fourteen years after the acquisition of the land, the railway authorities for whom the land was acquired have transferred 3. 21 acres of land to the Notified Area Committee, Rourkela. The above submission, in our opinion, is without merit. According to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the above mentioned area is sought to be transferred to the Notified Area Committee because the Notified Area Committee is the appropriate body to Construct and maintain the link road, bus and taxi stands and shops surrounding the railway station. The averments contained in the affidavit thus go to show that 3. 21 acres of land is not being used for a purpose extraneous from that for which the land was initially acquired. Apart from that, we find that this Court has recently held in the case of Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 S. C. R. 375' (A. I. R 1977 S. C. 448) that there is no principle of law by which a valid, compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the declaration. "
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is dismissed.;