IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.18361 of 2009 Between: B.Narayana Reddy and 59 others ..... Petitioners AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition, Secretariat Blds, Saifabad, Hyderabad and 2 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr.K.Chidambaram The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents, to re-convey the land, which was acquired from the petitioners, for the purpose of establishment of Naptha Based Gas Power Station and instead proposing to hand over the same to Companies for development of township and future projects. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that the Supreme Court and also this Court held that the land owners have no right to seek re- conveyance of the land, once acquired and compensation paid, on the ground that the same are not being put to use for the purpose for which they are acquired. I n 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”. As the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the above-noted judgment, the relief claimed in this Writ Petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.24034 of 2009, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 5th July, 2011 lur [1]2010 (5) ALT 213 [2] AIR 2007 SC 1691 : (2007) 9 SCC 255 [3] (1997) 5 SCC 432 [4] (2010) 2 SCC 786