IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15826 of 2001 Between: Sri P.D.Rathna Raju S/o. Dr. E.Ananda Rao R/o. VUDA Colony, Cantonment Vijayanagaram, Vijayanagaram District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Spl. Tahasildar, Land Acquisition, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. 2 The Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Forest & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in jot reconvaying the land admeasuring 1.00 Acre, in Sy.No.120 Patta No.187 of Chinnagadili (V) Pedagadili Panchayat limits vizag District or providing alternative site or paying Compensation as per the present market value to the petitioner as illegal and void and consequentally to direct the respondents to reconvey the said land or to provide alternative land in the vicinity or to pay Compensation as per the present Market value immidiatly to the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.BATHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.15826 OF 2001 ORDER: An extent of Ac.1-00, belonging to the petitioner, is said to have been acquired in the year 1981. The petitioner claims to have come to know about the acquisition only when his mother received notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner, thereafter, vide letter dated 2.5.1983, requested the respondents either to delete her land from the proposed acquisition or in the alternative to allot some other land to her. The Chief Conservator of Forests, in his proceedings dated 28.11.1983, opined that in view of the diﬃculties expressed by the petitioner’s mother, it was open to the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer to allot any other Government land in compensation, other than the lands already acquired. Thereafter, the District Collector, vide proceedings dated 12.1.1984, is said to have informed the Special Tahsildar to inspect the land applied for re- conveyance, prepare a plan and submit a report. Thereafter, the Government, vide proceedings dated 8.7.1985, examined the proposal of the District Collector for reconveyance of a portion of the land and observed that, while the land could not be re-conveyed, if the claim of the petitioner was worthy of consideration, it may be considered for giving alternative government land in the vicinity, if available in lieu of cash compensation as per the rules. Sri K.Bathi Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, while the land was acquired in 1981, the petitioner was called upon, much after ﬁling of the writ petition, to receive the compensation of Rs.10,000/- with other statutory beneﬁts. Learned Counsel would submit that the land which is acquired is presently valued at more than Rs.10-00 Crores and that payment of this meager amount as compensation would be wholly arbitrary. It is well settled that once the land is acquired for a public purpose, it is open to the Government either to use it for that purpose or for any other public purpose. The Government has taken a decision not to re-convey the land to the petitioner. It only decided to consider her case sympathetically for allotment of some other land. Sri K.Bathi Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, places reliance on Section 31(3) of the Land Acquisition Act to contend that the District Collector has the power to grant other land in exchange in lieu of compensation. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has not received compensation till date. He requests that the District Collector be directed to assign alternative land to her in the vicinity of the land acquired. Section 31(3) enables the District Collector, with the sanction of the Government, instead of awarding money compensation in respect of any land, to make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other land in exchange or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned. Since the Government had earlier, by order dated 8.7.1985, directed the District Collector to examine the petitioner’s claim if worthy of consideration and, since such a power inheres in the District Collector under Section 31(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, I consider it appropriate to direct the District Collector – 2nd respondent to examine the petitioner’s claim for allotment of alternative land in accordance with law and take an appropriate decision thereupon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A reasoned order shall be passed and the said decision of the 2nd respondent in this regard shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforementioned period. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________ 11.11.2008 ASP