ORDER : 1. Land measuring 1 acre said to belong to the petitioner was proposed for acquisition by issue of a notification dated 17-12-1986 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (the Act for short). The last of the notification under Section 4(1) was published in village chavadi on 6-1-1988, following which a final notification under Section 6(1) was issued on 23-1-1990 and thereafter wards, followed by the making of an award on 19-4-2000 whence compensation was deposited and notice under Section 12(2) served on the petitioner. Possession of the land however was restricted to 23 guntas since final notification under Section 6(1) was only in respect of that extent of land and the same was secured on 4-9-2003 by issue of a notification under Section 16 of the Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner land looser submits : Firstly, that the non-utilisation of the land for the purpose of formation of residential sites to be allotted to the officials of Revenue Department is not undertaken and therefore, scheme has lapsed and secondly, that under Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Fair Compensation Act for short) provides for return of unauthorised lands while Section 103 makes provisions of Fair Compensation Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. 3. The first of the submission of the learned Counsel need not detain the Court for long, as in Leela Wanti and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2012 SC 515 : (2012) 1 SCC 66 : 2012 AIR SCW 257, a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court decided that when land lying abandoned after the purpose for which it was acquired has not been accomplished need not be restored to its owner and in that case, it was observed that a petition for restoration filed after long gap of 30 years without any explanation for delay deserve rejection. In the instant case too, though the land has not been put to use, admittedly, for the purpose for which it is acquired by the State, nevertheless, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of restoration does not arise. In the instant case too, though the land has not been put to use, admittedly, for the purpose for which it is acquired by the State, nevertheless, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of restoration does not arise. In addition, petitioner, apparently, did not question the notification at the earliest opportunity, nor seek restoration at any point of time except by filing this petition on 8-1-2014. On that score too, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 4. The second submission is a specious plea, regard being had to Section 101 of Fair Compensation Act which states that when any land acquired under that Act remains unutilised from the date of taking over possession, the same should be returned to the original owner or owners or legal heirs. Admittedly, acquisition of the land is not under the Fair Compensation Act, but under the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, Section 101 would not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Yet again, Section 103 makes provision over addition to existing lands and the submission that Land Acquisition Act has to be read as if it is in force after the coming into force of Fair Compensation Act cannot be countenanced. (Emphasis supplied) 5. Petition devoid of merit is rejected. If petitioner has not so far withdrawn the compensation that is in deposit, it is open for the petitioner to withdraw the same, in accordance with law.