IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.15905 of 2007 Between: M.Bapanamma and others. … Petitioners And The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition For Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None. Counsel for the respondents: GP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not re- conveying the petitioners’ lands as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for land acquisition submitted that a similar Writ Petition viz., W.P.No.7113 of 2007 was dismissed by order dated 29-6-2011, wherein this court has held as under: “In my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to reconveyance of land in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. In 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’. Having regard to this settled legal position, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed”. For the reasons mentioned in the order passed in the above Writ Petition, as reproduced above, the Writ Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP No.20174 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:21-7-2011 MNR [1]) 2010(5) ALT 213 [2]) AIR 2007 SC 1691 = (2007) 9 SCC 255 [3]) (1997) 5 SCC 432 [4]) (2010) 2 SCC 786