ORDER : SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the record. Learned advocate Mr. M.B. Gohil for respondent no. 2. is present through hybrid mode. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners (7 in number) seek the following reliefs :- “20(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or declaration that petitioner’s land in question situated at Village Jaspur, Tal. Kalol, District : Gandhinagar bearing survey no. 32, 36, 66, 67, 68, 69, 105 and Survey Nos. 57, 59, 35 and 38 were not acquired and it not vested in the State as award was never acted upon by the Parties. (C) Be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned award declared by Land Acquisition Ofiicer bearing case no. 19 of 1997 at Annexure-B as no nest, unenforceable and void as no possession of the land was taken and no compensation was paid and the proceedings were never concluded. ALTERNATIVELY This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon respondents to release the petitioner’s land at annexure-A as stated in Annexure-A to this petition.” 2.1. During pendency of the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12107 of 2020, three (3) of the petitioners namely, petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 had expired, whose heirs have been brought on record. 3. The petitioners claim to be owners of different parcels of land, situated at Village Jaspur, Taluka Kalol, District – Gandhinagar, which were acquired vide Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on 26.03.1989 and 16.01.1999. As per the statement made in the writ petition, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had declared the award on 02.12.1999. We may note that the statement made in the writ petition about the petitioners being owners of different parcels of land is without any detail of survey numbers which were owned by them. 3.1. Be that as it may, a vague assertion has been made in the writ petition that no possession was taken and compensation was not paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 3.1. Be that as it may, a vague assertion has been made in the writ petition that no possession was taken and compensation was not paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is stated that the petitioners are cultivating the lands in question, which is an open land and it was though acquired for construction of canal, but no canal has been constructed. There is a reference of a communication dated 11.01.2000 of the Chief Executive of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) to the Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojna Canal, Division 3/2, Balvantrai Mehta Bhavan, Sector-17, Gandhinagar, that canal passing through ‘Sola Jaspur Distributary Canal’ is not required, inasmuch as, the said area passes through a residential zone. The area is to be declared as ‘Urban’ area and no agricultural operations were permitted therein. It was recommended that the project of canal was required to be cancelled. The statement made in the writ petition that though the land in question had been acquired by ‘Sardar Sarovar Nigam Limited’, but, the project of canal had been cancelled and the proposal for release of land in question was under consideration. In various paragraphs of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners were not paid compensation, nor the possession of the land in question had been taken. 3.2. It is further submitted that there is no concluded acquisition since possession has not been taken and compensation was not paid, the land in question had never vested with the State Government and the ownership of the land was never transferred to the State. The award made on 02.12.1999 is termed as paper award and that it has no legal sanctity or legal authority and is unenforceable. There is a reference of the pending matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority about impact of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2013”). 3.3. There is a reference of the pending matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority about impact of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2013”). 3.3. Against all these submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioners, an affidavit of the Executive Engineer, Narmada Project Canal Division No. 8, Dholka dated 20.04.2023 has been filed wherein, it is stated that indirectly the petitioners are claiming for re-grant of the acquired land which is not permitted as the Government Resolution dated 31.08.2001 for re-grant of the acquired land has been set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 20919 of 2017, holding that the said Resolution was contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The judgment and order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been brought on record, wherein it is held that the policy of the State of Gujarat vide Government Resolution dated 31.08.2001 permitting re- grant of the land where the land is considered for unusable for the public purpose, is in violation of the law. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the High Court was justified in holding that re-grant of the land is not permissible. 3.4. It is further observed therein, that re-grant is permissible only, if there is a policy for rehabilitation for persons displaced by the land acquisition, in case such persons are rendered landless. However, if the land acquired for public purpose is no longer needed for such purpose, the State can transfer such land, but such disposal is regulated by the doctrine of public trust. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the appellants therein were not entitled for re-grant of the acquired land as the re-grant policy itself was against Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as interpreted in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court including in Re: Natural Resources Allocation, (2002) 10 SCC 1 . It was, thus directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the policy of the State for re-grant shall not be given effect in future though liberty was kept open for the State to frame an appropriate policy in accordance with law for rehabilitation of the displaced persons who are rendered landless on account of acquisition. It was, thus directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the policy of the State for re-grant shall not be given effect in future though liberty was kept open for the State to frame an appropriate policy in accordance with law for rehabilitation of the displaced persons who are rendered landless on account of acquisition. The Hon’ble Apex Court has finally directed that disposal of the land/property vested in the State can only be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Taking note of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 01.12.2017, in the matter of re-grant permitted vide Government Resolution dated 31.08.2001, we find that no infirmity can be attached to the decision of the respondent in not permitting re-grant of the land in question, inasmuch as, the private land once acquired for the public purpose may be utilized for another public purpose, if it is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. 5. It is further relevant to note that the land acquisition proceedings in the instant case, had been brought to its logical end on 02.12.1999, when the award was passed by the competent authority. It is, thus, not acceptable that since the petitioners remained in physical possession of the land in question, the acquisition proceedings were not brought to its logical end. With the conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings by making of the award by the competent authority and taking paper possession by issuing of panchnama, it is not permissible for the petitioners to state that there was no acquisition or the proceedings stood lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. 5.1. It is, however, vehemently argued by the learned advocate for the petitioners that with the cancellation of the project in the letter written by the Chief Executive Officer, AUDA that no Canal can be constructed on the spot and as land in question falls in a residential zone, the land in question is to be reverted back to the petitioners. The land cannot be said to be vested with the State Government and there is no question of taking any proceedings for divesting of the land in question. The land cannot be said to be vested with the State Government and there is no question of taking any proceedings for divesting of the land in question. There is a reference of a communication dated 30.04.2011 of the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer that the Narmada Yojna, Unit-1, Mehsana addressed to the Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojna, about the checklist invited for release of the land in question. There is a further reference of a communication dated 28.03.2013 of the Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojna Canal Division No. 8, Dholka to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, (Narmada Yojna) Unit-1, Mehsana, on a reading whereof, it seems that it has no relation with the claim of the petitioners. 5.2. Be that as it may, in the affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, Narmada Project Canal Division No. 8, Dholka, it is stated that the Chief Executive Officer, AUDA wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer, Narmada Canal, Division 3/2, stating inter alia that the Canal passing through Village Jaspur, termed as ‘Sola Distributary Canal’, is not required as it is passing through the residential zone. The area is to be declared as ‘Urban’ area and no agricultural operations were permitted. It is further stated that, in future, the land would be falling under the ‘Urban’ area and there would be development which would indicate that there would be no effective cultivation and agricultural activities and, therefore, to that extent, the plan should be dropped. There is a reference of the communication dated 21.03.2008 to the extent that for 2,684 Hectares of the land, acquisition was to be dropped from the scheme. There is a further reference of the communication dated 01.08.2018 of the concerned department, namely, Narmada Water Supply, Water Resources and Kalpsar Department, Government of Gujarat, appended at page ‘112’ of the paper book, wherein it is stated that it was communicated to the General Manager (Land), Sardar Sarovar Nigam Limited, Secretariat, Gandhinagar, that release of the land under the provisions of the Act or re-grant was not permissible. 5.3. In furtherance thereto, a communication dated 01.09.2018 was sent by the Additional Collector, (Narmada), Ahmedabad to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojna, Mehsana with reference to the Land Acquisition Case no. 19 of 1997 that the release of the land in question was not possible. 5.3. In furtherance thereto, a communication dated 01.09.2018 was sent by the Additional Collector, (Narmada), Ahmedabad to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojna, Mehsana with reference to the Land Acquisition Case no. 19 of 1997 that the release of the land in question was not possible. The communication dated 19.09.2018 has further been issued to the petitioners by the Deputy Collector, (Narmada Yojna) intimating the decision taken by the State Government not to release the land in question, as communicated vide communication dated 01.08.2018 by the Narmada Water Supply, Water Resources and Kalpsar Department, Government of Gujarat. 5.4. It is further stated in the said affidavit that the petitioners have voluntarily and intentionally refused to accept the payment of the amount of compensation and hence the respondent had deposited the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.19,71,675/- as per the order dated 11.05.2007, in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kalol on 05.01.2021. It is pertinent to note that the said judgment and order dated 11.05.2007 was passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kalol in the reference cases under Section 18 having Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 167 of 2003 to 174 of 2003 and the compensation determined by the Reference Court has been deposited in the Court concerned on 05.01.2021. The contention of the petitioners in the writ petition that they were not given notice to receive compensation under the original award or the amount of compensation has not been paid to the petitioners, therefore, is not acceptable. 5.4. The fact remains that there is a decision of the competent authority, namely, the State Government, communicated vide communication dated 01.08.2018 that the land in question cannot be released as it is required for the public purposes by the State Government. 5.5. The said decision is not the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition, though a communication dated 19.09.2018 has been sent to the petitioners by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada Yojna), Mehsana pursuant to the decision of the State Government. A perusal of the said communication at page ‘61’ of the paper book indicates that there is a reference of the decision of the State Government, vide communication dated 01.08.2018. 6. A perusal of the said communication at page ‘61’ of the paper book indicates that there is a reference of the decision of the State Government, vide communication dated 01.08.2018. 6. In absence of the challenge to the decision of the State refusing to release the land in question, which stood vested with the State Government with the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings after declaration of the award in the year 1999, it is not possible for us to issue mandamus on the contention of the petitioners that decision had been taken at the level of the concerned department to release the land in question. 7. We may also refer to the affidavit of the Deputy Collector/ Special Land Acquisition Officer, (Narmada Project) Mehsana filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, wherein it is stated that in Land Acquisition Case No. 19 of 1997, award was passed on 02.12.1999 whereby the compensation had already been declared for the land to the extent of 1-66-61 Hectares which had been acquired. The petitioners had voluntarily not accepted the compensation though they had filed application under Section 18 of the Act seeking additional compensation. It is further stated that after declaration of the award dated 02.12.1999, notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were issued on 27.12.1999 to the land holders, giving the details of the survey numbers, measurement and the names of occupiers/ owners. The copies of such notices under Section 12(2) of the Act have been appended as Annexure-I (collectively) to the said affidavit. A table has been extracted therein, wherein the name of the all the petitioners giving details of the survey number, the area of the land acquired, the persons upon whom the notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were served and the dates of service of notices have been given, which show that all the original land holders of different survey numbers of the total acquired land for area 15,026 had been served with the notices under Section 12(2) of the Act, on 09.01.2000. 7.1. The said affidavit further refers to the communication dated 06.01.2000 of the Chief Executive Officer, AUDA, to the Executive Engineer (Narmada Yojna), Canal Division No. 3/2. Gandhinagar, giving opinion that the lands would be identified as residential zone as it would be falling under the ‘Urban’ area and in view of the development there would be no effective cultivation and agricultural activities. Gandhinagar, giving opinion that the lands would be identified as residential zone as it would be falling under the ‘Urban’ area and in view of the development there would be no effective cultivation and agricultural activities. As a result of it, the communication dated 21.03.2008 was issued to drop the scheme for the land to the extent of 2,684 Hectares. 8. However, it is stated that insofar as the dropping of the land acquisition proceedings, the power is vested with the State Government and the decision could only be taken by the State Government. The concerned department of the State, namely the Narmada Water Supply, Water Resources and Kalpsar Department, Government of Gujarat, has sent communication turning down the proposal to drop the acquisition of the land in question. The acquisition, thus, has attained finality. The said affidavit also refers to the communication dated 01.08.2018, reference of which has been made herein-above. 8.1. In any case, with the above noted facts brought on record, it is evident that the petitioners did not accept the award and challenged the determination of the compensation by invoking the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. While reference proceedings were brought to an end with the decision of the Competent Court dated 11.05.2007, nothing was done on the part of the petitioners. The petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2020 requesting for dropping of the acquisition proceedings, referring to certain communications between the Executive Engineer (Narmada Yojna) Narmada Water Supply, Water Resources and Kalpsar Department, Government of Gujarat and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, but there is no challenge to the decision of the State Government, namely the department of Narmada Water Supply, Water Resources and Kalpsar Department, Government of Gujarat, communicated vide communication dated 01.08.2018 that dropping of the land acquisition proceedings or withdrawal from the acquisition under Section 48 of the then Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not possible. 9. Insofar as, plea of the petitioners that there was no acquisition as possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the same is found misconceived. 9. Insofar as, plea of the petitioners that there was no acquisition as possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the same is found misconceived. In view of the above discussion, no benefit can be derived by the petitioners from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram & Anr., v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 621 , which is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that the acquired land once vested with the State Government can only be disposed of in accordance with the policy of the State. The re-grant policy of the State has been quashed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The release of the land in question was refused by the State in the year 2018, which is not subject matter of challenge before us. We, therefore, do not find it a fit case for issuance of mandamus as prayed for. Both the writ petitions are, thus, dismissed, being devoid of merits. Notice is hereby discharged.