JUDGMENT : Akil Kureshi, J. Petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the acquisition of land bearing part of Survey No.115/A/1 admeasuring 1 acre 20 gunthas is bad in law and the object of acquisition having failed, the Collector should return the land back to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner claims ownership right over the land bearing Survey No.115/A/1 admeasuring 3 acres 29 gunthas of village Kapadwanj along with other co-owners. A part of such land admeasuring 1 acre 20 gunthas was acquired under award dated 16.07.1956 for Prajapati Community for extracting soil. For such purpose, the acquired land was granted to one Nadhi Darwaja Prajapti Gnati Panch, Kapadwanj. It is not in dispute that possession of such land was also handed over to such Panch. Many years later, the petitioner found that one Manilal, purportedly acting on behalf of such Panch, had executed an agreement to sell on 05.01.1998 for sale of the land by accepting earnest money deposit of Rs.5,000/-. The purchaser had also filed Civil Suit No.6 of 1998 seeking specific performance of such agreement which was later on converted into Special Civil Suit No.100 of 2004. According to the petitioner, that suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.09.2006. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner applied to the Collector, Kheda on 06.08.2013 and brought to his notice that in the past an attempt was made to sell the land for a consideration of Rs.2,02,250/-. However, the suit for specific performance was dismissed. It was stated in the application that the Panch is not using the land for which it was granted. No such use was ever made. The petitioner is ready to return the amount of compensation with interest as may be directed, subject to which the land may be returned to the petitioner. 4. The Collector, Kheda, however, by impugned order dated 01.12.2014 rejected such application. The Collector recorded the stand of the petitioner and also that of the Panch who had contended that the allegation of the land not having been used is not correct. Members of Prajapati Community had utilised the land for extraction of soil. However, lately such use was rather limited. Nevertheless, it cannot be stated that the land was not utilised for which it was granted to the Panch. Members of Prajapati Community had utilised the land for extraction of soil. However, lately such use was rather limited. Nevertheless, it cannot be stated that the land was not utilised for which it was granted to the Panch. The Collector in the said order came to the conclusion that once the land was validly acquired, it vested in the Government and the original owner was divested of his title and cannot claim re-grant of the land. He noted that the land was acquired 50 years back and since then it is in possession of the Panch. Previously, extraction of soil was carried out. However, lately, such use has become limited. Nevertheless, such use still continues. Primarily on this ground, the Collector rejected the application for re-grant of the land. 5. Learned counsel Mr. M.B.Gandhi for the petitioner vehemently contended that the land was never used for the purpose for which it was acquired and allotted to the Panch. In fact, the Panch tried to dispose of the land unauthorisedly. This was a clear case of fraudulent utilisation of acquisition proceedings. The land should be re-granted to the petitioner on suitable conditions. The Collector did not examine all aspects in proper perspective. He did not follow the Land Acquisition Manual which also envisages re-grant of land under certain circumstances. 6. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the following decisions: (i) Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. v. G.Jayaram Reddy reported in 2011 (3) GLH 425 ; and (ii) Leelawanti and Others v. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 66 . 7. We are, however, of the opinion that the Collector committed no error. Firstly, the land was acquired in the year 1956 when, admittedly, compensation was paid to the land owner and possession was taken over and given to Prajapati Samaj Panch for the purpose of soil extraction for use of members of that community in pottery business. The predecessors-in-title of the petitioner thus were divested of their title of the land in question. The petitioner's assertion that the land was never used for the purpose for which it was granted is not borne out from the record. The Collector has held that previously such land was put to use and currently such use continues, though its use has become very limited as compared to past use. The petitioner's assertion that the land was never used for the purpose for which it was granted is not borne out from the record. The Collector has held that previously such land was put to use and currently such use continues, though its use has become very limited as compared to past use. Merely because with passage of time and change in requirements the purpose for which the land was granted to the Panch has become reduced, would not mean that, at the outset, the acquisition of the land was unauthorised or with mala fide intention. When the acquisition itself was made in the year 1957, never challenged till date and, in any case, was found to have served its purpose, it will not be open for the petitioner to question the same on the grounds mentioned above. 8. The decision of the Supreme Court in case of Royal Orchid Hotels (supra) was rendered in a different factual background. It was a case where land was acquired at the instance of Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation for the public purpose of construction of Golf-cum-Hotel Resort near the airport. However, on abandoning such purpose, the Corporation intended to transfer the land to private individuals. The Supreme Court held that the Corporation made false projection to the State Government that land was needed for execution of tourism related projects. Instead of using it for such purpose, the land was transferred to private individuals. It was held that the transaction revealed the true design of the officers of the Corporation who first succeeded in persuading the State Government to acquire huge chunk of land for a public purpose and then transferred major portion thereof to private individuals and corporate entities by citing poor financial health of the Corporation. It was in this context the Court held that the entire exercise was a fraud on the acquisition proceedings. 9. The request of the petitioner to re-grant of the land simply cannot be accepted. It is now well settled through a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that once a private land is acquired for public purpose, the erstwhile owner losses his right, title and interest over such acquired land and cannot claim re-grant on the ground that the public purpose has failed. It is now well settled through a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that once a private land is acquired for public purpose, the erstwhile owner losses his right, title and interest over such acquired land and cannot claim re-grant on the ground that the public purpose has failed. In fact, in the case of Leelawanti (supra) cited by counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court while upholding the decision of the High Court rejecting the request for re-grant of the land observed as under: "22. The approach adopted by the High Court is consistent with the law laid down by this Court in State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai (1997) 5 SCC 432 : () and Government of A.P. v. Syed Akbar ( AIR 2005 SC 492 ) (supra). In the first of these cases, the Court considered validity of an executive order passed by the Government for assignment of land to the erstwhile owners and observed: "4. In view of the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The question emerges: whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by getting higher value." 23. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by getting higher value." 23. The facts of the second case show that the respondents succeeded in persuading the Andhra Pradesh High Court to order release of land in terms of Standing Order 90(32) of the A.P. Board of Revenue (as amended in 1998). This Court referred to Sections 16 and 48 of the Act and observed: "15. If the land relinquished is likely to be again required for public purposes, it should be merely leased out for such term as may be considered desirable in each case. If the acquired land was an agricultural land at the time of acquisition, it should be disposed of inviting for sale in public auction by giving wide publicity in respect of sale. If at the time of sale, anybody puts forth his claim in respect of any field either as an adjacent owner or as an original owner, the sale of that field should be stopped and his claim investigated and disposed of in the manner specified in sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of Note (2) of the Board's Standing Order 90(32). If it is found that his claim is not proved, the field should be sold by public auction. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to show that the part of the acquired land which remained unused was relinquished by the Government. A letter of Resident Engineer stated that the unused land was no more required cannot amount to relinquishment of the said land by the competent authority. In order to make a claim under para 32 of the said Board's Standing Order in the first place, it was necessary that the competent authority had subsequently relinquished the unused land. After such relinquishment of the land, the land had to be notified for sale in public auction. In order to make a claim under para 32 of the said Board's Standing Order in the first place, it was necessary that the competent authority had subsequently relinquished the unused land. After such relinquishment of the land, the land had to be notified for sale in public auction. If at the time of sale of such land, the original owner made a claim, sale could be stopped and his claim could be investigated and thereafter the land was to be disposed of in the manner specified under the said paragraph." Added to this, by virtue of the amendment to para 32 brought about by G.O.Ms. No. 783 dated 9.10.1998, the land for the public purpose shall be utilised for the same purpose for which it was acquired as far as possible and in case the land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired due to any reason, the land shall be utilised for any other public purpose as deemed fit." In the result, the petition fails. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.