IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23552 of 2002 Between: Yerramilli Seetha Devi w/o Sri jagapathi R/o 11-93, Aditya nagar Hukumpet, Rajahmundry ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, East Godavari Distri Kakinada, A.P. 2 Land Acquisition Officer Rajahmundry 3 Chairman, Bharat Petroleum Corp.Ltd Ballard Estate , Mumbai 4 Senior Manager (South Bharat Pet.Corp.Lt Ranganathan Gardens, Chennai .....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 any appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the press notification dt.3-10-2002 published in Eenadu telugu daily issued by the 4th respondent corporation proposing to sell the property of Ac.4.32 cents situated in Sy.No.553/1B-2, 554/1-B of Rajahmundry, East Godavari District as illegal, void and unjust and further direction the 4th respondent to deliver and re-convey the said property to the petitioner on the condition of refunding the land acquisition compensation amount paid to her under award No.2/88 dt.13-4-88 by the 2nd respondent after calling for all the necessary records relating to the matter. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.PARABRAHMA SASTRI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.Y.N.LOHITA The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner owned an extent of Acs.4.32 cents of land in different sub-divisions of survey Nos.553, 554 and 555 of Rajahmundry (Rural), East Godavari District. The same was acquired by invoking the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the benefit of M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, the third respondent herein. She was also paid compensation, vide Award No.2 of 1988, dated 13.04.1988. A storage depot was established in the land. The third respondent issued notification, dated 03.10.2002, proposing to sell the land, together with the storage tank thereon. The petitioner states that her land was acquired for the specific purpose of establishing a storage tank and in case the third respondent does not need the land any longer, it is liable to be returned to the petitioner, duly collecting the amount of compensation paid to her. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent. It is a matter of record that the land of the petitioner, referred to above, was acquired for the purpose of establishing a storage depot by the third respondent. On finding that it is not necessary for it to maintain the storage depot, the third respondent issued a notification, dated 03.10.2002, proposing to sell it. The insistence on the part of the petitioner to return the land can certainly be treated as justified, if only the land in the same form when it was acquired, is sought to be sold by the third respondent. Even on a perusal of the notification, it emerges that a large-scale infrastructure was brought into existence in the form of storage depot and other paraphernalia. Learned Standing Counsel submits that an amount of about Rs.15/- crores was spent in developing the infrastructure. What is proposed to be sold is not the land alone, but also the structures that were made by it. Therefore, the petitioner cannot insist that the land be restored to her. Secondly, he submits that though a proposal was mooted for sale of the unit, it has since been dropped and the third respondent itself wants to continue the facility under its management. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.25.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ