IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24486 of 2005 Between: Gunipati Pandurangaiah. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District, … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.Ravinder Reddy. Counsel for respondent: AGP for Land Acquisition. 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 Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not assigning the land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Survey No.54/4 of Mannur village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District, which was acquired by the respondent earlier from the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit the petitioner submitted that an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in Survey No.54/4 of Mannur village was acquired by the Government for Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad (for short “APIICL”); that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.1,000/- per acre; that on reference, the same was enhanced to Rs.8,000/- per acre; and that the said enhanced compensation amount was not paid to the petitioner. It is further averred that except on two plots, the allottees from the APIICL have not established any industries and the plots are kept vacant. It is further stated that the only earning member of the family of the petitioner, viz., his son-G.Ravi Kumar, has passed away and the petitioner made a representation to the respondent to assign Ac.0.40 cents, out of the land which was acquired from the petitioner and not utilized. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not considered the said representation and passed appropriate orders. At the hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, stated that on receipt of representation dated 6-8-2005, a notice was issued on 1-9-2005, wherein the petitioner was called upon to produce a copy of the judgment in which the market value was enhanced by the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Rajampet, to consider his application for payment of enhanced compensation; and that the petitioner has not given any reply nor furnish the details of the same. As regards the claim of the petitioner that he may be given back the unutilized portion of the land acquired from him, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to such a relief. The law is well settled that if a particular land is acquired for a public purpose and even if the same is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, the same can be utilized for any other public purpose, if not for the same purpose for which it was acquired. In this view of the matter, the request of the petitioner for assignment of a portion of the land, which was already acquired from him after following due process of law and vested in the Government, cannot be accepted. However, if the petitioner was not paid the enhanced compensation, it is the obligation of the respondent to see that such compensation is paid to him. The submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, which was noted above, shows that there was some effort on the part of the respondent to pay the petitioner the enhanced compensation if the same is not paid and letter dated 1-9-2005 was said to have been addressed to the petitioner for this purpose. In the above factual background of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the respondent with a representation for payment of enhanced compensation, if the same was not received by him, by giving necessary details of the award proceedings, and, within four weeks of receipt of the said representation, the respondent shall dispose of the same. If the respondent finds that the enhanced compensation has not been paid to the petitioner, he shall take appropriate steps to pay the same to the petitioner. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30-06-2008 MNR