IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.7113 of 2007 Between: S.Raghu. … Petitioner And: The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Municipal Commissioner of Hyderabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Srinivasa Rao. Counsel for the respondents: GP for Land Acquisition for R1. None for R.2 and R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s case for re- conveyance of the land acquired for formation of MMTS shunting line. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that an extent of 121 square yards of land belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the above mentioned purpose and compensation was paid under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner got the dispute referred to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and the learned counsel at the hearing stated that the said proceedings are pending. In the meantime the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for reconveyance of the land on the ground that a part of the said land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. In my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to reconveyance of land in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. In M.Jagannath Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], this Court, while dealing with a similar case, referred to the relevant case law and observed as under: “In a catena of judgments, the Apex Court, considering the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the 1894 Act”), and Section 48B in particular, held that upon acquisition of land title therein vests absolutely in the State or the agency on whose behalf the land is acquired; if the land acquired for a public purpose is not utilized for the purpose for which the same was acquired, it can be utilized for any other public purpose; and that the original owners, from whom the land was acquired, are not entitled for reconveyance on the ground that the land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. (See: Tamilnadu Housing Board vs. Keeravani Ammal[2], State of Kerala Vs. M.Bhaskaran Pillai[3] and Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. L.Chandrasekaran[4]. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, allotment of land for a Housing Co-operative Society, comprising employees of a public sector undertaking, is certainly for a public purpose. As such, in my opinion, the petitioners are not entitled for reconveyance of the land either under the provisions pleaded by them or under Section 48B of the 1894 Act”. Having regard to this settled legal position, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.9071 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-6-2011 MNR [1]) 2010(5) ALT 213 [2]) AIR 2007 SC 1691 = (2007) 9 SCC 255 [3]) (1997) 5 SCC 432 [4]) (2010) 2 SCC 786