Kartar Singh And Others v. State Of Uttarakhand And Others S

Hon'ble V.K Bist, J.

Hon'ble U.C Dhyani, J.

CLMA No. 5678/15 (Delay Codn. Application)

IN

Special Appeal No. 214 of 2015.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. There is as many as 83 days' delay in filing the appeal. Considering the sufficiency of reasons indicated in the accompanied affidavit, inasmuch as, the delay condonation application being not opposed by the counsel for the opposite parties, the same is allowed. Delay stands condoned. Appeal is treated to have been filed within time.

SPA No. 214/2015

&

SPA No. 215/2015

3. Since controversy involved in these Special Appeals is identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the appeals have been consolidated and are being decided by a common judgment. Special Appeal No. 214 of 2015 shall be the leading case.

4. Two Writ Petitions, bearing WPMS Nos. 67 of 2015 and 934 of 2015, were filed by the writ petitioners. Land of the petitioners' (appellants herein) was acquired about forty years ago for the public purpose. Award was passed, compensation was awarded in favour of the appellants and possession of land was taken by the State Government. Petitioners approached this Court seeking directions to the respondents to return the acquired land to them, as the same is not being utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. It was also prayed by the petitioners that directions may also be issued to the respondents to let out the portion of the acquired land in favour of the petitioners.

5. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners/appellants that the land in question was not utilized by the respondents in the manner, for which it was acquired. It is also contended that, infact, the land is being leased out in favour of private persons, however no opportunity was offered to the petitioners besides their vested interest.

6. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, on the other hand, submits that infact, the respondent no. 2 has leased out the property for agricultural purpose, after giving a public notice, and it was open for the petitioners to respond to the said public notice. He also submits that in future also, the land in question shall be leased out after giving public notice in the newspaper.

7. Since the land in question was acquired 40 years ago, in our view, the land once acquired, cannot be directed to be returned back to the party concerned. Learned Single Judge has also taken the same view. We are unable to take a contrary view as has been taken by the learned Single Judge.

8. The appeals, being devoid of merits, are liable to the dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

9. Let a copy of this judgment be also kept in the connected Special Appeal.