Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri U.N. Sharma learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma and Sri Shyam Shankar Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following prayer :

“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 20.7.1965 and 18.11.1965 respectively (ANNEXURE-‘1’ & ‘2’ respectively to this writ petition);

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release the land measuring 201 Bighas & 6 Biswas (125.8125 Acers) situated in Villages Begambad, Budana and Aurangabad Gadana, Pergana Jalalabad, Tehsil Ghaziabad (now Modinagar), District Meerut (now Ghaziabad) in favour of the petitioners as it is not being utilized for the purposes, for which it was acquired;

(c) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

(d) Award cost of this petition to the petitioners.”

3. The admitted facts of the present case are that the State Government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as 1894 Act).

4. The aforesaid notification was issued clearly mentioning therein that the land which is proposed to be acquired is for the purpose of private company namely Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for the purpose of establishment of a factory.

5. Undisputedly, the aforesaid Company is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act as such the provisions of Chapter 7 of the 1894 Act are applicable to the present case.

6. Subsequently, an agreement dated 21.10.1965 was entered into between the State Government and the Company under Section 41 of the 1894 Act and cost towards acquisition was paid and possession of the land was acquired. Thereafter, a notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 18.11.1965 and on 14.12.1965 the land was transferred to the Company.

7. It is also not in dispute that thereafter the Company established its factory and started production and therefore the purpose for which the land was acquired was also fulfilled.

8. However, the allegation is that the Company suffered heavy losses and closed its production and the plant and machinery was dismantled and the constructions situated over the land were also demolished.

9. The submission is that since the Company failed to fulfill its purpose for which the land was acquired, therefore, the petitioners who are legal heirs of the original land owners are entitled to get back the land in their favour.

10. We have heard Sri U.N. Sharma learned Senior Advocate at length and have extensively perused the record of the present petition. Apart from, undisputed facts which have been mentioned above, it is also on record that apparently on 19.7.2001 a letter was written by the Managing Director U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, which was considered at the State Government level and in view of the fact that the industry could not run successfully and the Company was in heavy debts and was liable for making payments to the various financial institutions, on 25.7.2001 approval was granted to the Company to sell off its land for the purpose of making payments to the financial institutions etc.

11. There can be no dispute that permission could have been granted by the State Government as per the agreement dated 21.10.1965 executed between the State Government and the Company. Copy of the sale deed executed by the Company in favour of some private party also clearly mentions this fact that the Company has been granted permission to sell off its land so acquired for the purpose of the Company.

12. On confronted with the question of latches as the notification under Section 4 is d