IMPORTANT POINT
There is no provision to return the acquired land after fulfillment of purpose of acquisition.

Judgment :

1. Leave granted. Whether the State Government is under an obligation to return the acquired land to the owners after the purpose of acquisition is accomplished is the question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against the order dated 21-1-2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Leelawanti v. State of Haryana (CWP No.9152 of 2007, order dated 21-1-2008 (P&H).

2. One Shri Radha Krishan owned several parcels of land in Village Shodapur, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat. After the death of Radha Krishan in 1972, land owned by him was inherited by his legal heirs including Appellant 4, Satish Chander (son); Appellant 5, Smt Seeta Devi (daughter) and Appellant 6, Swaran Lata (daughter). Some of the other heirs of Radha Krishan bequeathed their shares to his grandchildren (Appellants 2 and 3) by executing separate wills. A general power of attorney was also executed in favour of Appellant 1, Smt Leelawanti @ Savita Rani, wife of Appellant 4 Satish Chander.

3. In 1976, the State Government acquired the appellants’ land for construction of brick kiln for feeder and return channels in Village Shodapur. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) were issued on the same day i.e. 7-9-1976. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the award dated 6-12-1976 and the compensation determined by him was paid to the appellants, who received the same without raising any objection/protest.

4. After 23 years, the appellants through their advocate Shri A.K. Wadhawan, sent notice dated 13-7-1999 to the functionaries of the Irrigation Department and the Land Acquisition Collector for return of the acquired land by asserting that the purpose for which the land was acquired had been achieved by the Irrigation Department and the acquired land is now lying abandoned in the form of pits for the last 17-18 years and that the same is no more required by the Department concerned. In the notice it was also mentioned that the adjoining land of the appellants comprised in Rectangle No.31, Killa No.13, 12/1 min was also acquired by the Irrigation Department for the purpose of extension of government kiln but the same was returned after the purpose of acquisition was achieved.

5. In his reply to the notice, the Land Acquisition Collector vide his letter dated 26-8-1999 informed the appellants’ advocate that he does not have the power to acquire or return the land and that the appellants may contact the Collector, Panipat. In a separate reply the Superintending Engineer (Irrigation) (Construction Circle, Karnal) disclosed that the land was acquired for brick kiln for feeder and return channel for the thermal plant and the work was executed as a deposit work of the Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB). According to the officer concerned, after completion of the project, the land was transferred to HSEB. Yet another reply was sent by the Engineer-in-Chief, Construction, PTPP, HPGC, Panipat stating therein that feeder channel construction by the Irrigation Department is under the control of the Chief Engineer (O&M), PTPS, Panipat.

6. Having failed to evoke a favourable response from the authorities concerned, the appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for issue of mandamus to the respondents to restore the land to them. In support of their claim, the appellants relied upon Para 493 of the Land Administration Manual, Standing Order 28 and the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Suraj (2004 (12) SCC 538). The appellants also pleaded that not only their land comprised in Rectangle No.31 but land owned by others, namely, Chanan Singh, Rattan Singh, Sher Singh, sons of Jawahar Singh and Pratap Chand, son of Jagdishwar Lal had been returned to the owners after fulfillment of the object of acquisition.

7. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 4 it was pleaded that the a