IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15851 of 2008 Between: 1 Ch. Ranganna S/o. Roganna R/o. Pebbair Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, A.P. 2 Ch. Shantanna S/o. Karenna R/o. Pebbair Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, A.P. 3 Ch. Pedda Beesanna S/o. Poshanna R/o. Pebbair Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, A.P. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Priyadarshini Jural Project, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue and appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents herein in not considering the representations of the petitioners dt. 31.07.2007 and 03.04.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and to consequently direct the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said representations, and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mrs. S.NANDA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15851 OF 2008 ORDER: The writ petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.14.33 gts situated in Sy.Nos.847, 9343, 946 and 947 of Pebbair Village, Wanaparthy Revenue Division, Mahaboobnagar District. Out of the said land, an extent of Ac.3.25 gts situated in Sy.No.943 was acquired for the purpose of laying “Left Main Canal under Priyadarshini Jural Project”. To that eﬀect, a notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was published on 28.05.1992. Another notiﬁcation was published on the same day i.e., 28.05.1992, acquiring the remaining extent of Ac.11.08 gts for a diﬀerent public purpose viz., “Flank Quarry under Priyadarshini Jural Project”. The petitioners state that though the land acquired for the purpose of laying the Left Main Canal under Priyadarshini Jural Project was utilized for the purpose for which the same was acquired, the other land which was acquired under a diﬀerent notiﬁcation for the purpose of Flank Quarry could not be utilized for the said purpose and that the petitioners continued in possession of the same. Since the said land is the only source of their livelihood, the petitioners made representations dated 31.07.2007 and 6.08.2007 to the Tahsildar and Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Wanaparthy, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Hyderabad, respectively, requesting for reconveyance of the said land and to re-allot the same to them on payment of the market value. Alleging that the said representations have not been considered, but on the other hand, the respondents are proposing to utilize the land in question for providing permanent structures to Gurukul Residential College, Pebbair, the present writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Admittedly, pursuant to the notiﬁcation dated 28.05.1992, published under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer passed an Award under Section 11 of the Act deciding the compensation payable to the persons interested and the same was already paid as per Section 16 of the Act. When such an Award is made under Section 11 of the Act, the land shall thereupon vests in the Government free from all encumberances. As held in State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai [1] and Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra[2] the law is well-settled that the land acquired for a public purpose can be utilized for any other public purpose and the same cannot be restituted to the erstwhile owner to whom adequate compensation was paid according to the market value on the date of the notification. While reiterating the above position of law, in Northern India Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh[3], it was further made clear that the fact that the land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired do not confer any right on the erstwhile landowner to ask for restitution of the land. However, it was observed that it is open to the State Government to take appropriate action. In the case on hand, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to consider their representations. It is not their case that they had acquired any right for restitution, but their only grievance appears to be that since, as on today, they are continuing in possession of the land in question, their request for reconveyance deserves consideration. As noticed above, though the petitioners cannot claim any right as such for restitution of the land in question, since their representations are pending before the respondents, the respondents are bound to consider the same and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs 05.08.2008. Kgr [1] (1997) 5 SCC 432; [2] (1996) 6 SCC 405; [3] (2003) 1 SCC 335