M.M. Kumar, CJ.— 1. The Union of India and its officers have preferred the instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to challenge the judgment and order dated 04.06.2007 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that requisition of the land since the year 1956 is beyond permissible limit. The appellants were granted four months time from the date of the judgment to acquire the land and pay all arrears of rent compensation. 2. The land in dispute belonging to the writ petitioner-respondent, was requisitioned by the appellants with effect from 04.03.1956 when its actual possession was taken by the Army. The land belonging to the writ petitioner-respondent is 23 Kanal which is comprised in Khasra no. 1568, another piece of land measuring 35 kanal falls under Khasra no. 1569 which is situated at village Birpur Tehsil Samba. The land is in the possession of the Army from the year 1956. The appellants did not even pay the due requisitioned-compensation at the notified rate. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge issued directions to the appellants to continue paying the requisitioned compensation to the writ petitioner-respondents at the enhanced rates in terms of SRO 443 dated 01.10.1999. The other issue determined by the learned Single Judge pertained to acquisition of land. Accordingly directions were issued by the learned Single Judge to acquire the land in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 2 SCC 337 and Grahak Sanstha Manch v. State of Maharashtra (1994)4 SCC 192 . According to the view taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the land of a citizen cannot be kept under requisition for a long period which has to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly, the period from 1956 was considered adequate by the learned Single Judge to conclude that the appellants should either acquire the land within a period of four months from the date of the order, failing which the writ petitioner-respondents were to be given back their land and its possession was required to be restored back to the writ petitioner- respondent within a period of one month thereafter. 3. 3. A perusal of various orders passed by this Court from time to time would show that no concrete steps had been taken in the direction of acquiring the land belonging to the writ petitioner-respondent and instead they have been continuing to pay the rental compensation. The proposition of law is that if the land of a citizen had remained under requisition for a long period than it has to revert back to him and its possession had to be surrendered. 4. The view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court has been repeatedly followed and applied in recent judgments. In case of Roy.Estate v. State of Jharkhand & Ore (2009) 12 SCC 194 and Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation v. Shahal Hassan Mussaliar & anr (2009) 12 SCC 635 , the Courts have gone to the extent of issuing directions to the requisitioning authorities to immediately surrender possession of the requisitioned land. In the case of Roy Estate (supra) the property was requisitioned in the year 1942 for the Army under Rule 75(A) of the Defence of India Rules framed under Defence of India Ordinance 1939. It was deemed to be a requisition under Section 3 read with Section 23 of the Requisition and Acquisition of immoveable property Act, 1952. However, the land was never acquired. Holding that the requisition could not have continued beyond the year 1987 and approving the observations made in the cases of H.D.Vora (supra) and Grahak Sanstha Manch (supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court issued directions to the authorities that the entire requisitioned property shall be released in favour of the successor-in-interest and the authorities were also required to pay all the arrears of rent compensation. Similar view has prevailed in the case of Shahal Hassan Mussaliar (supra). 5. In the present case, admittedly the land is in occupation of the Army authorities since 1956 and more than 55 years have passed. The pendancy of the instant appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge also failed to wake-up the appellants from their deep slumber. The matter has been kept pending and no effective steps are shown to have been taken for acquisition of the land for the period of last over 5 years commencing from the date of the judgment i.e. 04.06.2007. The matter has been kept pending and no effective steps are shown to have been taken for acquisition of the land for the period of last over 5 years commencing from the date of the judgment i.e. 04.06.2007. The appellants have already taken advantage of procedural delays and the pendancy of the litigation, therefore, they shall handover the vacant possession of the land to the writ petitioner-respondent and other land owners by the end of year 2012. The appellants shall also pay all the arrears of rental compensation to them. 6. The appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The edit be paid to the writ petitioner- respondent by payees account cheque within one month.