The disposal of surplus land must adhere to the guidelines in Standing Order 28, offering the land to the owners and giving them priority, as specified in paragraphs 493-95.

ORDER

1. This appeal is against 5-12-2000.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are as folIows:

The lands were acquired by the Government for instalIation 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 shalI 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 malter of grace, the Government is usualIy 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 judgment has dismissed the second appeal.

4. It was submitted that in this case the land was required for plantation of trees by the Forest Department. It was submitted that the respondents had no right to claim back possession of the land. We see no substance in this submission. By the order dated 28-6-1977, the Government has already declared this land to be surplus. Now the same was to be disposed of as per Standing Order 28. A perusal of Standing Order 28 shows that the Financial Commissioner has to dispose of the land as per paragraphs 493-95. It could not be disputed that paragraphs 493-95 do not permit giving of such land free of cost to the Forest Department. Under paragraph 493, the land has to be offered to the owners on the conditions mentioned therein. Further, the order dated 28-6-1977 also clarified that priority had to be given to the