Lal Chand Lohia and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Hemant Gupta, J—The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the purpose of acquisition for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has been changed so as to use the land acquired for the purposes of Medical College. Similar question has been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in 2012 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 292 : CWP No. 17979 of 2011 titled Jagtar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 09.02.2012, wherein after examining all the judgments, it has been held that the purpose of acquisition can be changed provided the change purpose is also a public purpose. Hon''ble Supreme Court in V. Chandrasekaran and Another Vs. The Administrative Officer and Others, (2012) 9 JT 260 : (2012) 4 RCR(Civil) 588 : (2012) 9 SCALE 142 : (2012) 12 SCC 133 held as under:-

"29. Similarly, in State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another, AIR 1997 SC 2703 : (1997) 2 CTC 177 : (1997) 6 JT 22 : (1997) 117 PLR 879 : (1997) 4 SCALE 295 : (1997) 5 SCC 432 : (1997) 1 SCR 87 Supp : (1997) AIRSCW 2673 : (1997) 6 Supreme 54 this Court held as under: (SCC p. 433, para 4)

"4. ....It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution."

(emphasis supplied)

See also C. Padma and Others Vs. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. and Others, (1996) 9 SCALE 278 : (1997) 2 SCC 627 : (1996) 9 SCR 158 Supp , Bhagat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1999 SC 436 : (1998) 8 JT 472 : (1999) 122 PLR 140 : (1998) 6 SCALE 475 : (1999) 2 SCC 384 : (1998) SCC(L&S) 581 : (1998) 3 SCR 404 Supp : (1999) AIRSCW 101 : (1998) 9 Supreme 361 , Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja (d) by L.Rs. Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2002 SC 2532 : (2001) 10 JT 268 : (2002) 9 SCC 682 : (2002) AIRSCW 2750 , Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh and Others, AIR 2003 SC 234 : (2002) 9 JT 240 : (2003) 1 SCC 335 : (2003) 1 UJ 66 and Leela Wanti and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2012 SC 515 : (2011) 13 SCALE 1 : (2012) 1 SCC 66 : (2012) AIRSCW 257 .

In Govt. of A.P. and Another Vs. Syed Akbar, AIR 2005 SC 492 : (2004) 5 CTC 506 : (2004) 10 JT 569 : (2004) 9 SCALE 553 : (2005) 1 SCC 558 : (2004) AIRSCW 7125 : (2004) 8 Supreme 621 , this Court considered this very issue and held that, once the land has vested in the State, it can neither be divested, by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, nor can it be reconveyed to the persons interested/tenure-holders, and that therefore, the question of restitution of possession to the tenure-holder, does not arise. [See also Pratap and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1996 SC 1296 : (1996) 2 JT 759 : (1996) 2 SCALE 543 : (1996) 3 SCC 1 : (1996) 2 SCR 1088 : (1996) 1 UJ 822 , Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1996) 7 AD 681 : (1996) 9 JT 258 : (1996) 7 SCALE 82 : (1996) 6 SCC 405 : (1996) 5 SCR 445 Supp , State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another, AIR 1997 SC 2703 : (1997) 2 CTC 177 : (1997) 6 JT 22 : (1997) 117 PLR 879 : (1997) 4 SCALE 295 : (1997) 5 SCC 432 : (1997) 1 SCR 87 Supp : (1997) AIRSCW 2673 : (1997) 6 Supreme 54 , The Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed and Others, (2004) 4 JT 158 : (2004) 4 SCALE 192 : (2004) 4 SCC 460 : (2004) 3 SCR 799 : (2004) 2 UJ 1300 : (2004) AIRSCW 7270 , Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3631 : (2005) 12 JT 64 : (2005) 8 SCALE 80 : (2005) 12 SCC 508 : (2005) 3 SCR 901 Supp and Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2011) 9 JT 440 : (2011) 9 SCALE 201 .

In view of the above, the law can be crystallised to mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of the landowner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to only receive compensation for the same, unless the acquisition proceeding is itself challenged. The State neither has the requisite power to reconvey the land to the person interested nor can such person claim any right of restitution on any ground, whatsoever, unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect."

Since the land in dispute is being utilized for a college which is a public purpose, therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the present writ petition.

Dismissed.