HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT W.P.Nos.28389, 25039 & 28423 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are residents of Lakshmipuram Village, Agali Mandal, Ananthapur District. The prayers in these writ petitions are substantially same and similar. The narration of factual aspect in W.P.No.28389 of 2008 is sufficient for disposal of all the three writ petitions. The subject matter of the writ petitions is house sites in Sy.No.126/2 of Lakshmipuram village. On 19.05.1976, Government initiated proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for acquisition of land covered by Sy.No.126. After following the procedure, award No.657/1976 dated 08.10.1976 was passed. Thereafter, possession of land has been taken over by the Government and the property vested in Government free from encumbrances. Before proceeding further, it is noted that the land has been acquired for the purpose of providing house site accommodation to the members belonging to scheduled caste of Lakshmipuram village. After land has been acquired, it is not in dispute that a lay out consisting of 53 plots was prepared and 14 plots were assigned to the members of scheduled caste due to non-availability or any other relevant reason, the remaining house sites were not assigned. The respondents, with a view to providing house sites under the welfare scheme implemented in the year 2007, taken steps to allot available plots to people who are eligible for allotment. In the proposed list of allottees, the respondents have included members of Backward Classes. Hence, the writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue a Mandamus declaring the action of respondent-authorities in assigning house sites in Sy.No.126/2 of Lakshmipuram Village to beneficiaries other than scheduled caste members and construction of houses by them in petition land as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and consequently, direct the respondents not to assign or take up construction of houses only for the benefit of Scheduled Castes in the above Sy.No.126/2 of Lakshmpuram village, Agali Mandal, Ananthapur District. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents, for the reasons best known to them, have not distributed the available vacant plots all these years to the members belonging to scheduled caste community in spite of several representations. With a view to have exclusive consideration of available house sites, it is stated that the petitioners represented to the District Collector for allotment and just before filing the writ petition, the representation was followed by a reminder. It is further stated that the land acquired through award No. 657/76 dated 08.10.1976 was at the first instance on the representation of members of scheduled caste belonging to Lakshmipuram village. The definite purpose of acquisition is stated both in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, as well award dated 08.10.1976 and the purpose of acquisition cannot be changed. It is the definite case of petitioners that once the land is acquired to provide house sites to the members belonging to the scheduled caste, it shall be exclusively used for the benefit of members belonging to the said community and that there are eligible members in Lakshmipuram village for assignment. Without considering the cases of such persons, the respondents are assigning available vacant plots in Sy.No.126/2 to the members of backward communities. Hence, the writ petition. This Court, through order dated 21.11.2008 in WPMP.No.26823 of 2008 in WP.No.20539 of 2008 passed interim order as follows: “Counter affidavit is filed stating that the construction has already been completed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any order as prayed for. However, four constructed houses under Indiramma Housing Scheme shall not be allotted to any person, if not already allotted.” The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit in WP.No.20539 of 2008. The reply of respondents is that the Government has introduced Indiramma Housing Scheme and Lakshmipuram h/o Inagalore village, Agali Mandal is selected as one of the identified villages for implementation of the programme in the II phase during the year 2007. From out of the available vacant plots, it is classified that 15 house site pattas again are assigned to scheduled caste beneficiaries (i.e. the joint family members of previous assignees in the year 1976) and 20 plots were assigned to the eligible members of backward community for construction of houses in II Phase of the welfare programme. It is the case of respondents that at the time of further allotment of house sites, no other eligible scheduled caste person or without house site patta was available in the village. The 2nd respondent further avers that the acquisition was for the purpose of providing house sites to the members of scheduled caste. All the available members in the village belonging to scheduled caste were suitably accommodated in Sy.No.126/2. For the purpose of immediately providing house sites to the members belonging to backward community, it has been decided to allot 20 plots in existing lay out to persons other than scheduled caste community. It is thus, justified that there is neither illegality nor irregularity and it is for the Government to decide or utilise the land acquired depending upon the contingencies of the situation. Without further acquisition, the Government has rightly utilized the available plots to give it to members other than scheduled caste community and no exception can be taken. It is further averred that with a view to sort out the differences between different two groups in the matter of assignment of house sites in Sy.No.126/2, the Revenue authorities went to the village and expressed the necessity of allotment of plots to all the residents of village. The assignees who are already residing in Sy.No.126 have willingly consented for assignment to members other than scheduled caste community and in this context, it is stated that the Sarpanch of the village is creating problems between the members belonging to different groups. Since there is consensus, the authorities justify allotment of 20 plots to members belonging to backward community. It is stated that the construction is undertaken, the respondents pray for summary disposal of the writ petitions. In the above circumstances, the point for consideration is whether the land acquired by the Government through award dated 08.10.1976 can be utilized for a purpose other than for which the house sites were acquired or not. Sri D.Y.Karunakar Dayanidhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently submitted that award is the final document on the issue of acquisition of land by the Government. Right from the stage of initiation of land acquisition proceedings, till award has been passed, there is consistency in the public purpose of acquisition of land. A lay out was sanctioned for the benefit of as many as 53 persons and the respondents shall ensure that the houses are allotted in this lay out only to the members belonging to scheduled caste community. The change of purpose is not conceived under the Act and the assignment is illegal. In support of his legal submissions, the learned counsel relies upon the decisions reported in Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S.Muddappa[1] and Chintala Radha Madhava Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad[2]. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the principles laid down in the reported decisions, a writ of Mandamus shall be issued to the respondents to utilize the land acquired through award dated 08.10.1976 only for the benefit of members of scheduled caste community and none else. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that the Government is entitled to use the acquired land for any purpose. The compensation is paid for the acquired land, and with the passing of Award the property stood vested in Government. The purpose can certainly be changed, depending upon the exigencies of the situation and further contends that the law on this aspect is no more res-intigra. I have carefully considered the material available on record and the submissions of Mr.D.Y.Karunakar Dayanidi. It is required to be noted that either for the existing requirement or future requirement, the land in an extent of Acs.2.26 cents in Sy.No.126/2 was acquired under the Act. After payment of compensation, the land stood vested with the Government free from encumbrances and for all purposes an owner of the property. A lay out was sanctioned fairly to meet the contemporaneous situation in the year 1977, house sites to all the available members of scheduled castes have been provided from the lay out. The beneficiaries have constructed houses. Notwithstanding such allotment, on account of non-availability of sufficient number of Scheduled Caste beneficiaries, a large chunk of plots has remained at the disposal of Government. It is not in dispute that a welfare programme has been taken up and implemented by the Government to provide houses/house sites not only to the members belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, but also members belonging to backward communities and other eligible persons. The Tahsildar has identified the available plots not only for allotment to the members belonging to backward class communities, but to ensure fairness in action as is borne out from the reply in the counter affidavit, the members of Joint family of original assignees are considered and further houses under Indiramma Scheme have been allotted. After taking care of the eligible members belonging to scheduled caste and also the applicants from different communities, the Tahsildar has identified members belonging to backward community and assigned houses under the welfare programme to these applicants. This Court is unable to perceive any illegality or irregularity in such an exercise to file writ petitions. The law is well settled that the government with the vesting of the property under the Act can certainly use it for any other purpose. Further as held above, in the ongoing assignment, the members of Scheduled Caste were also accommodated with houses under the scheme along with others (Backward Class). The petitioners being the villagers, cannot compel the respondents to utilize the available plots only for the benefit of members of scheduled caste. It is for the Government to decide the best user of available plots. At best, the petitioners are only entitled for consideration of their applications for grant of house sites, if they are entitled for assignment or allotment under the welfare scheme. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners firstly do not arise under the Act and to be specific, the decision reported in Bangalore Medical Trust’s case (1 supra) arises under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, where the subject matter of the reported case was a de-notification issued by the Government contrary to the notified Master Plan. The said decision has no application. Likewise, the other decision relied upon by the learned counsel arises under Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. The reason stated for the first decision is applicable with same force to the present citation relied upon by the learned counsel. The submission that the act of respondents is contrary to the settled law is rejected. Though the Court is refusing the relief as prayed for, it is required to be noted that large number of people have been accommodated under welfare schemes. If the respondents find any of the petitioners as eligible for consideration, the same may be scrutinized from out of the houses set apart pursuant to the interim direction, the cases of such eligible persons may be considered along with other beneficiaries (Backward Class) and appropriate orders are passed. With the above observation, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. ______________ S.V. BHATT, J Date: 27.08.2014 KLP [1] 1991 AIR(SC) 1902 [2] ALD 1997 (5) 828