Kulbir Singh vs State Of Punjab

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—On September 26, 1969, the Slate Government issued a Notification u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 189 Kanals and 18 Marias of land belonging to the petitioners was acquired for the purpose of "providing Hume Pipe, Rising main and Sewage.....". The petitioners allege that in the year 1995, the land was leased out by the Slate Government to the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. Thereafter, on February 6, 2000, a news item appeared in the press, which disclosed that an ultra Modern Diary Complex was being raised at that spot. Applications for allotment of sites have been invited through a notice in the press, which has appeared in the daily Tribune on February 6,2000. The petitioners pray that since the land is not being used for the purpose for which it had been initially acquired, it should be restored to the owners.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. It has been averred that the land was being used for the purpose for which it had been initially acquired. It was a low lying area. With the help of sewage water the land had become cultivable. Thereafter the Municipal Corporation provided a system of underground sewerage. The land has, thus, become available for a different use and, therefore, the diary project is being set up.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

Admittedly, the petitioners had been paid the compensation. The land was used for the purpose for which it had been initially acquired. With the passage of lime, the city developed all around the land. Using it forsew-age purposes at this stage would create a health problem. Thus, the Municipal Corporation has provided an underground sewerage facility. Resultantly, the land is now available for a different public use. In this situation, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents is illegal or unfair.

Mr. G.S. Nagra refers to the decision of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society, Hyderabad, Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Etc. Etc., . He contends that the land has to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired. There is no quarrel with the proposition. However, the circumstances of the present case are peculiar. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have not used the land for the purpose for which it had been acquired. It is only on account of the change in the situation that the land is being used for a different public purpose.

No other point has been raised.

No ground for interference is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.