JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. This is a classic case, where it can be held judicial processes can be abused, and we say so for the reasons indicated herein below : - 2. We have heard Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned AGP appearing for the State. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner has sought for following reliefs : - “8(A). Quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 03.02.2021, Annexure-P to this petition, and (B) Direct the respondent authorities to restore the ownership of the land of the petitioner being agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 43, 45 and 47 situated at Mauje : Venpur, Taluka Bhiloda, District Sabarkantha, and accordingly, make necessary changes in the revenue record of the land in question by entering the name of the petitioner in the said revenue record,” 4. The petitioner and his ancestors claimed to be the owners of the land bearing Survey Nos. 43, 45 and 47 situated at Mauje : Venpur, Taluka Bhiloda, District Sabarkantha (now District : Aravalli). Undisputedly, said land was acquired in the year 1961 for Meshvo Jalagar Yojana, for which the petitioner received compensation and did not seek for enhancement of compensation and thereby the award passed had attained finality. After 52 years, suddenly petitioner woke up from his slumber and submitted a memorial – representation to the State seeking for return of land on the ground that said land which was acquired in the year 1960, possession taken and compensation paid, has not been utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. In order to buttress his claim, petitioner relied upon the resolution of the State dated 21.05.1971 contending inter alia that that as a matter of policy, the State itself had taken a decision that in the event of lands acquired for the purposes of maintaining the high flood level, and in the event of such land is not inundated in water, such lands should be returned to its owner after taking back the compensation given to them. As such, petitioner – writ applicant attempted to revive a dead cause of action, infact this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held submitting a memorial or representation would not revive a dead cause of action. As such, petitioner – writ applicant attempted to revive a dead cause of action, infact this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held submitting a memorial or representation would not revive a dead cause of action. This proposition gets support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman & Managing Director and Anr. Versus K. Thangappan & Anr. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322. Similar is the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 1967 SC 993 and AIR 1970 SC 470 . 5. Be that as it may. On the strength of such representation having been submitted and the internal correspondence that ensued between the officers namely jurisdictional Executive Engineer having addressed a letter to the Mamlatdar, wherein specific opinion from the officials for returning the land in question as sought for by the writ applicant was sought for and on account of no decision having been conveyed, and there being a purported opinion or certificate issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Modasa, dated Nil, produced along with writ compilation papers at page No. 30, which certifies that remaining land other than the acquired land for Meshvo Jalagar Scheme of Survey No. 43 of Moje Village Venpur will not be required in future for the development work of Meshvo Jalagar Scheme, petitioner had approached this Court seeking restoration of the acquired land, which resulted in a observation being made by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3778 of 2020 vide order dated 27.02.2020, to the effect that in the background of opinion of the Executive Engineer, petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit representation and on such representation being submitted, respondents authorities were directed to consider the request of petitioner for returning the land in question and it was directed that such request shall be considered within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of petition, which may be served along with the copy of this order. It is on the basis of this order petitioner intends to revive the dead cause of action or resurrect his claim after a period of 60 years. Infact on the ground of delay and laches itself, said petition was liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may. It is on the basis of this order petitioner intends to revive the dead cause of action or resurrect his claim after a period of 60 years. Infact on the ground of delay and laches itself, said petition was liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may. The acquisition has taken place way-back in the year 1960 and compensation has been received in the year 1960 without any demur. The award passed by the jurisdictional authority has also attained finality and now attempt is made by the petitioner to revive a dead cause of action and such attempts cannot be entertained by this Court. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (Supra), has held to the following effect : - “6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports ( AIR 1970 SC 769 ). Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably. 7. Infact on similar issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Versus Syed Akbar reported in AIR 2005 SC 492 , has made following observations after analyzing the case laws. It reads : - “12. Yet in another recent decision, this Court in Northern Indian Glass Industries vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors. [ (2003) 1 SCC 335 ] referring to the case of Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil (supra) and other cases held that "if the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that did not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land". Paras 10 and 11 of the said judgment read thus:- "10. Paras 10 and 11 of the said judgment read thus:- "10. In Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra [ (1996) 6 SCC 405 ] it is stated that the acquired land remaining unutilized was not intended to be restituted to the erstwhile owner to whom adequate compensation was paid according to the market value as on the date of notification. 11. Yet again in C. Padma Vs. Dy. Secy. To the Govt. of T.N. [ (1997) 2 SCC 627 ], it is held that acquired land having vested in the State and the compensation having been paid to the claimant, he was not entitled to restitution of possession on the ground that either original public purpose had ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for other purpose." 13. From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions, it follows that (1) under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances; (2) the land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for any other public purpose; and (3) the acquired land which is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be reassigned or re-conveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order. 8. An acquisition proceedings which has attained finality, non-utilization of the land for which it was acquired, would not cloth the owner of the land to seek for restitution and it does not confer any right for such owner to seek for restitution of such land as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Northern Indian Glass Industries Versus Jaswant Singh and Others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 335 . On this ground also the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Undaunted by misadventure made in the first instance by filing a petition in Special Civil Application No. 3778 of 2020 and armed with an order passed on 27.02.2020, yet again petitioner has pursued his dead cause of action by submitting a representation resulting in the impugned communication dated 03.02.2021 being forwarded to the petitioner by jurisdictional Collector assigning the reasons for rejection of petitioner’s claim. Reasons so assigned is to the following effect : - “With respect to above subject xxx………..xxx to take action from here. Reasons so assigned is to the following effect : - “With respect to above subject xxx………..xxx to take action from here. According to his report dated 18.12.2020, Executive Engineer Irrigation Scheme Division Modasa, by his letter dated 01.10.2020, as per the existing condition, the land with Survey No. 43 and 45 is being used for the tail channel of Meshwo Jalagar and road. Some land is saved. The waste water from the land with survey no. 47 is located at the place where the water passes through the tail channel. Also, according to the previous letters of the government, the work of developing the works of Buddhist Vihar around Shamlaji is in progress and it is not decided which land will be selected, so no land can be returned at present. As per the data of Central Maping System, Gandhinagar while preparing the Meshvo Jalagar Scheme, land acquisition is done by the Government based on flood calculation and other relevant observations, it cannot be said with certainty at this stage whether the land which is currently exposed will be inundated in the future. So your demand is cancelled as it is stated that the demand for return of land cannot be accepted as the above mater is a matter of policy. Sd/- Chitnish to Collector Aravalli Modasa” 10. The authorities having come to the conclusion that lands acquired cannot be released for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the misadventure sought to be made by the petitioner requires to be curbed with iron hands or in other words it has to be nipped at the bud by not only by dismissing this petition but also mulcting the petitioner with costs. 11. Hence, following : ORDER (1) Special Civil Application is dismissed with costs. (2) Petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent – State as costs of this petition within six (6) weeks from today, failing which the Collector, Aravalli Modasa would be at liberty to recover the same as arrears of land revenue from petitioner. 12. Learned AGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.