JUDGMENT : S.G. Pandit, J. The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: (a) Call for the records, on the file of Respondents, peruse the same, allow the Writ Petition, quash the acquisition dated 11.02.1985 issued in No. CI/173 SPQ/84. Published in the Official Gazette dated 21.03.1985 in Part- III-1 on Page No. 253 by the Desk Officer, Commerce and Industrial Department, Karnataka Government, Bengaluru i.e. Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.2 in the Official Gazette in Part- III Section 1 on 25.06.1987 under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Development Act, 1966 in No. CI/73 SPQ84 Dated 16.05.1987 vide Annexure A & B respectively in so for as the land of the Petitioners is concerned by issue of a Writ in the nature of Certiorai consequently, issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents to restore the land to the Petitioners. 2. The petitioners state that they were the owners of land bearing Sy. No. 15/2 measuring 5 acres 2 guntas PK 10 gunta total 4 acres 32 guntas of Naganapur village in Mudhol Taluka. The said lands were acquired by respondent- KIADB by issuing preliminary notification u/S 28 (1) of the KIADB Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') and 28(4) notification on 11.02.1985 and 16.05.1987 respectively. Awards were passed on 4/27.05.1991and 14.01.2015 in respect of the acquired lands. 3. It is stated that the petitioners made representation on 19.08.2016 praying for restoration of the acquired lands on the ground that they are still in their possession and the land is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ papers. 5. Admittedly the land in question were acquired under Notification dated 11.02.1985 issued u/S 28(1) of the Act and Notification dated 16.05.1997 issued u/S 28(4) of the Act. Further, awards were passed on 4/27.05.1991. 6. The lands are acquired by the State more than 30 years back. The petitioners have slept over the matter for more than 30 years and at this length of time the prayer of the petitioners suffers from delay and latches. Representation for restoration is made nearly after 30 years. Till then the petitioners have not raised any grievance and on the other hand received compensation, delivered possession and enjoyed the compensation money. The petitioners have slept over the matter for more than 30 years and at this length of time the prayer of the petitioners suffers from delay and latches. Representation for restoration is made nearly after 30 years. Till then the petitioners have not raised any grievance and on the other hand received compensation, delivered possession and enjoyed the compensation money. The delay in approaching this Court is not at all explained and acceptable cause is not forthcoming or delay in approaching this Court. Only on the ground of delay and latches the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 7. The contention of the petitioners is that they are still in possession of the acquired lands and the acquired lands have not been utilized for the purpose for which the acquisition was made under the notification in question. Once the lands are acquired by the State and award is passed and possession is taken, there is no provision under the Act or under the Land Acquisition Act to restore the land to its owner. When once the lands acquired in accordance with law, it vests with the State Government. It is for the State which acquires the land to utilize the land for any other purpose. Normally when the award was passed and possession was taken long back, the Court should not interfere with the acquisition proceedings. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 335 held that, the land if not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, the owner has no right to seek to revest the land in himself, since the land vests in the State. Paragraph No.9 of the above decision reads as follows: "9. Looking to the facts of the present case and conduct of respondents 1-5, the High Court was not at all justified in ignoring the delay and laches and granting relief to them. As already noticed, Respondents1-5 approached the High Court by filing writ petition almost after a period of 17 years after finalization of the acquisition proceedings. They accepted the compensation amount as per the award and sought for enhancement of the compensation amount without challenging the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6. As already noticed, Respondents1-5 approached the High Court by filing writ petition almost after a period of 17 years after finalization of the acquisition proceedings. They accepted the compensation amount as per the award and sought for enhancement of the compensation amount without challenging the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6. Having sought for enhancement of compensation only, they filed writ petition even three years after the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in the matter of enhancement of compensation. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions. Merely because full enhanced compensation amount was not paid to the respondents, that itself was not a ground to condone the delay and laches in filing the writ petit ion. In our view, the High Court was also not right in ordering restoration of land to the respondents on the ground that the land acquired was not used for which it had been acquired. It is a well-settled position in law that after passing the award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, the landowner does not get any right to ask for revesting the land in him and to ask for restitution of the possession." The dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court aptly apply to the case on hand. 9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the lands having not been utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, the petitioners are entitled for reconveyance of the said land. The said contention is also liable to be rejected. Once having acquired the land, the acquired land vests with the Government. The acquired land could be used by the State Government for any other public purpose. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court make it clear that if the acquired land remains unutilized, it cannot be reconveyed or reassigned to erstwhile owner, the land could be utilized for any other purpose. The decision reported in (2013) 4 SCC 524 at Para 14 and 16 reads as follows: "14. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court make it clear that if the acquired land remains unutilized, it cannot be reconveyed or reassigned to erstwhile owner, the land could be utilized for any other purpose. The decision reported in (2013) 4 SCC 524 at Para 14 and 16 reads as follows: "14. There is no dispute with regard to the settled proposition of law that once the land is acquired and mandatory requirements are complied with including possession having been taken, the land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Even if some unutilised land remains, it cannot be re-conveyed or re-assigned to the erstwhile owner by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. This Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. vs. V.Syed Akbar, (2005) AIR SC 492 held that : - "10. It is neither debated nor disputed as regards the valid acquisition of the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the possession of the land had been taken. By virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land has vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. In the instant case, even under Section 48, the Government could not withdraw from acquisition or to reconvey the said land to the respondent as the possession of the land had already been taken. The position of law is well settled. In State of Kerala and Others. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr, (1997) 5 SCC 432 para 4 of the said judgment reads: (SCC p. 433) '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. 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 a higher value." 16. Indisputably, the land in question was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of expansion of the city i.e. construction of residential/commercial building under planned development scheme by the Meerut Development Authority and that major portion of the land has already been utilized by the Authority. Merely because some land was left at the relevant time, that does not give any right to the Authority to send proposal to the Government for release of the land in favour of the land owners. The impugned orders passed by the High Court directing the Authority to press the Resolution are absolutely unwarranted in law. 10. By following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases stated supra, the instant writ petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected.