IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 13550 of 2009 Between: 1 Ch.Ranganna S/o. Sri Roganna Pebbair(V) and (M) Mahabubnagar District 2 Ch.Shantanna S/o Sri Karenna Pebbair(V) and (M) Mahabubnagar District 3 Ch.Pedda Beesanna S/o Poshanna Pebbair(V) and (M) Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector Mahabubnagar District Mahabubnagar A.P 2 The Superintending Engineer Priyadarshini Jurala Project Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District .....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 issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings No G1/601/2009 dt 3-3-2009 issued by the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary Counsel for the Petitioners: MRS.S.NANDA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: O R D E R:- The petitioners assert that in pursuance of the Notification dated 28.5.1992, issued by the Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector, Gadwal, their lands were acquired for the purpose of laying Left Main Canal under PJP, Pebbair village and Mandal by removing soil from the lands acquired for Flank Quarry. Thereafter, though the works relating to main canal were completed, the lands in question, acquired for Flank Quarry were not utilized for the Priyadarshini Jurala Project, and the same have been under their cultivation since 1992. As their lands remained unutilized for the Project, the petitioners state that they made representations dated 31.07.2007 and 03.04.2008 to the respondents requesting them to re-assign the lands to them by collecting the market value. As their representations were not considered, the petitioners filed writ petition in W.P. No.15851 of 2008, and this Court, by order dated 5.8.2008, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider their representations and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Subsequently, they filed Contempt Case alleging willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order of this Court. Now, their grievance is that pending disposal of the Contempt Case, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 03.03.2009 rejecting their request for re-conveyance of their lands. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that once the land is acquired for a public purpose and compensation paid to the land oustees, the petitioners are not entitled to seek re-conveyance of the land on the ground that the land acquired for a particular purpose was not made use of. He further submitted that once the land is acquired and compensation paid to the land oustees, the Government becomes the owner of the property, and the land oustees have no right whatsoever to seek re-conveyance of the land, and therefore, the respondents having considered the request of the petitioners in the light of the orders passed by this Court, rejected the same. In support of his arguments, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Keeravani Ammal[1]. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired by the Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the petitioners were also paid the compensation. Once the land is acquired and compensation paid, the land vests in the Government free from all encumbrances, and it is the prerogative of the State as to how to make use of the same. In this context, reference be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Keeravani Ammal[2], on which the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing on behalf of the respondents, placed strong reliance. The apex Court, in the said case, having considered the question whether re-conveyance can be ordered on the ground that the acquired land was not made use of, held as follows: “We may also notice that once a piece of land has been duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State. The State can dispose of the property thereafter or convey it to anyone, if the land is not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, only for the market value that may be fetched for the property as on the date of conveyance. The doctrine of public trust would disable the State from giving back the property for anything less than the market value. The question emerges: whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilized for the public purpose as envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution.” In the case on hand, since the petitioners were paid compensation in respect of the acquired land, and the land having become that of the Government, the petitioners, having regard to the law laid down by the apex Court in the above judgment, have no manner of right whatsoever to seek re-conveyance of the land. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in rejecting the representations of the petitioner for re-conveyance of the land at market value. Hence, I see no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 10th July, 2009 bcj [1] AIR 2007 SC 1691 [2] AIR 2007 SC 1691