RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned G.O./notification dated 08.02.1962 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) and for a direction to the respondents to return the land of Gram Sabha Rawali Mehdood, Pargana-Jawalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioners are residents of village Rawali Mehdood, Pargana Jawalapur, District Haridwar. The petitioners are challenging the Notification dated 08.02.1962 whereby huge area of the land of Gram Sabha was acquired by the respondents. The petitioners are affected by the acquisition of the land by the respondents because the executives of the State deliberately abused the power granted to them under the land acquisition Act, 1894 in acquiring the lands and played a fraud on the petitioners/villagers. A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to the Act) was published in U.P. gazette dated 08.02.1962, thereby notifying various plots of land, including the land of Gram Sabha of the Rawali Mehdood, Mouja Jawalapur, District Haridwar, where the respondent/B.H.E.L. wanted to set up its factories and dwelling houses for its workmen.

(3.) REFUTING the averments made by the petitioners in the petition, Mr. V.K. Kohli, the learned Senior Advocate for respondent no. 3 submitted that vide Notification issued in the year 1962 the Govt. acquired said land, including the land of petitioners' village for establishing a Public Sector Undertaking i.e. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, its factories and dwelling houses for its workmen. Learned counsel for BHEL further submitted that the land acquired was handed over to BHEL. He submitted that the petitioners nowhere in the petition have pleaded that they have not been paid any compensation in lieu of the land acquired for the purpose. He further submitted that compensation has already been paid to the petitioner at the time of said acquisition. He argued that the petitioners cannot raise dispute after a lapse of 48 years asking for returning the remaining unutilized land. In this regard the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in C. Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases-627 and contended that after the compensation has been paid and possession has been taken over by the Government, the land of petitioners cannot be returned back to them.