IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1133 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19/04/1996 in WP No : 3816 OF 1996 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The District Collector, Khammam. 2 The District Social Welfare Officer, (Land Acquisition), Khammam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Enkur Mandal, Khammam District. ..... APPELLANTS AND Gugloth Eshwar Naik, S/o. Laxma Naik (petitioner) R/o. Bhagawan Naik Thanda, H/o. Tootakalingannapet Village, Enkur Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.DAMODAR REDDY The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No.1133 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari). The above writ appeal is preferred by the appellants against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No:3816 of 1996 on 19.4.1996. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner and he filed the writ petition in W.P.No:3816 of 1996 seeking a direction to redeliver the land admeasuring Ac.2.29 guntas situated in S.No:53 of Bhagawan Naik Thanda, Hamlet of Tootakalingannapet village,Enkur Mandal of Khammam District to him on refund of the compensation amount, which was paid to his father. The learned single Judge having observed that the respondents who are the executives and subordinates of the Government, are bound to act in tune with the policy of the Government to help the tribals by all means and in all ways, directed the respondents who are appellants herein to receive the compensation amount, which was paid to the father of the writ petitioner without claiming any interest and on receipt of the said amount, redeliver the possession of the land in question to the writ petitioner. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the respondents-appellants. Heard the learned G.P. for Land Acquisition and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent. The main thrust of the argument of the learned G.P. for Land Acquisition is that the reassignment or reconveyance of the acquired land to the erstwhile owner, is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and in support of his contention, he relied on a decision reported in GOVERNMENT OF A.P. VS. SYED AKBAR ([1]) wherein it is laid down thus: “From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions, it follows that (1)under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances; (2)the land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for any other public purpose; and (3)the acquired land which is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be reassigned or reconveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order.” In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of the writ petitioner- respondent that the acquired land should be redelivered to him on refund of the compensation amount, which was paid to his father, cannot be sustained and consequently, the order of the learned single Judge, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. However, no order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI ____________________________ Justice SANJAY KUMAR Dated 29th June, 2009. Dvs/Gurc HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No.1133 OF 2003 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Dated 29th June, 2009. [1] (2005) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 558.