JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the purpose of acquisition for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has been changed so as to use the land acquired for the purposes of Medical College. 2. Similar question has been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 17979 of 2011 titled Jagtar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 09.02.2012, wherein after examining all the judgments, it has been held that the purpose of acquisition can be changed provided the change purpose is also a public purpose. Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Chandrasekaran and another v. Administrative Office and others, (2012) 12 SCC 133 held as under:- "29. Similarly, in State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, (1997) 4 SCC 432 this Court held as under: (SCC p. 433, para 4) "4. .... 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." (emphasis supplied) See also C. Padma v. Govt. of T.N., (1997) 2 SCC 627 , Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P., (1999) 2 SCC 384 , Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja v. State of W.B. ( 2002 9 SCC 682 , Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 335 andLeelawanti v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 66 . 30. In Govt. of A.P. v. Syed Akbar, (2005) 1 SCC 558 , this Court considered this very issue and held that, once the land has vested in the State, it can neither be divested, by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, nor can it be reconveyed to the persons interested/tenure-holders, and that therefore, the question of restitution of possession to the tenure-holder, does not arise. [See also Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 3 SCC 1 , Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 6 SCC 405 , State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, (1997) 5 SCC 432 , Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed, (2004) 4 SCC 460 ,Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508 and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC 354 ] 31. In view of the above, the law can be crystallised to mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of the landowner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to only receive compensation for the same, unless the acquisition proceeding is itself challenged. The State neither has the requisite power to reconvey the land to the person interested nor can such person claim any right of restitution on any ground, whatsoever, unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect." 3. Since the land in dispute is being utilized for a college which is a public purpose, therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the present writ petition. Dismissed.