M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS petition prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to restore the land acquired by them vide notification dated 7.9.1976 on the ground that the original purpose for which the land has been acquired stood accomplished and also quashing the action of respondent -authorities in proceeding to transfer the land to the private companies/individuals being illegal, arbitrary, mala -fide and ultra vires of Standing Order 28 of the Financial Commissioner.
(2.) IT is undisputed that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by issuing notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') on 7.9.1976. The enquiry and filing of objections under Section 5A of the Act were dispensed with and the declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was published on the same date. The award was announced under Section 11 of the Act on 6.12.1976 by the Land Acquisition Collector, Irrigation Department, Rohtak and possession of the land was taken by respondent No. 1. The purpose of acquiring the land was construction of brick klin. The land was utilised for the afore -mentioned purpose. The land became available after the channel was completed and brick kiln was removed. The case set up by the petitioner is that once the purpose of acquiring the land has been accomplished and it has again became available then the petitioners are entitled to get the land restored to them. It is asserted that some legal notices have been issued and the land is now being transferred to various departments. In the written statement it has been clarified that the land was acquired in the year 1976 and all the land owners have received adequate compensation as per their share (Annexures R/1 and R/2). The land was utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. After a period of 30 years the land cannot be restored back to the petitioners as the ownership of the land vest with the respondent -State.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that this is a frivolous piece of litigation. There is no rule of law that land if acquired for one purpose is liable to be restored back to the previous land owner if it has become available after utilization. The land was acquired for the purpose of raising brick klin and it was utilised for that purpose. After its proper utilisation the brick klin were removed and the land became vacant. Therefore, the land vest in the respondent -State and it can be utilised for any other purpose according to the changed conditions. The object of utilising the land cannot remain static all the times. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Singh v. : AIR1999SC436 . Even otherwise the land was acquired in the year 1976 and the purpose of acquisition was accomplished. The land became available thereafter which now vest in the respondent -State as per law. The question cannot be re -opened after 30 years. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.;