IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 26873 of 1999 Between: G. Venkateswarlu, S/o Late Subbaiah, representing Late Smt. G.Anasuya Alias Anasooyamma, R/o Tripuranthakam Post & Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary Revenue (LA) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Land Revenue Government of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 4 The Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, Prakasam District. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ order or direction, declaring the G.O.Ms.No. 783 Revenue )LA) Department Dt. 9.101998 issued by the 1st respondent and the subsequent endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent in L.Dis G1/4106/97 dt. 10.12.1999 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Principles of Natural Justice or in alternative G.O.Ms.No.783 Revenue (LA) Department dt. 9.10.1998 issued by the 1st respondent cannot be applied to the petitioner's case retrospectively and hence the consequential proceedings of the 3rd respondent issued in L.Dis.G1/4106/97 dt.10.2.1999 as illegal, arbitrary and consequentially direct the respondent to reconvey the unutilised acquired land of Ac. 0- 20 cents in Sy.No. 259/1 of Tripuranthakam Village & Mandal, Prakasam district in favour of the petitioner on payment of proportionate original costs price for balance extent of Ac. 0-20 cents and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 26873 of 1999 Order: The petitioner, claiming to be the legal heir of his wife late Smt. G. Anasuya, whose father late Sri Rama Murthy was the awardee in Award No. 78 of 1977 dated 26.07.1977, has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to re-convey the unutilized acquired land of Ac.0-20 cents in Survey No. 259/1 of Tripuranthakam village and Mandal, Prakasam District, on payment of proportionate original cost price for the said extent. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner’s father-in-law had an extent of Ac.5-17 cents in Survey No.259/1 of Tripuranthakam village, which along with other lands was acquired for construction of N.S.P. Office building and staff quarters by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, as per the requisition of the Public Works Department. Admittedly, the compensation awarded was received by the petitioner’s father-in-law. The petitioner would contend that, since the respondents had acquired land in excess of their requirement, he could make a claim for re-conveyance of the unutilized land under para 32(3) of B.S.O. 90 and as per amended G.O. Ms. No. 628 dated 19.05.1976. The petitioner would refer to the no-objection certificate dated 20.05.1985, certifying that an extent of Ac.0-20 cents was not utilized by the department and was lying vacant. He would contend that, despite his request to re- convey the land, the authorities had slept over the matter and, eventually, by letter dated 10.02.1999, the petitioner was informed that his request for redelivery of possession of land could not be considered as the surplus land was required for public purposes and the same could be used for any other public purpose in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 783 dated 09.10.1998. The validity of the said G.O is under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that it cannot be made applicable to a request made for re-conveyance prior to issuance of the G.O. Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, vide G.O. Ms. No. 783 dated 09.10.1998, para 32 of BSO 90 was amended enabling the Government to utilize the excess land acquired for any other public purpose including afforestation. Learned counsel would submit that amendment to BSO 90(32) would not have retrospective effect and that an earlier request for re-conveyance could not be rejected on the basis of a subsequent amendment to the Board Standing Orders. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would, however, contend that, since the land had been acquired for a public purpose, and the awardee had been paid compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land stood vested in the Government and that the public purpose, for which the land was acquired, having been achieved, any extent of land which remains unutilized for the said public purpose could be utilized for any other public purpose. Notwithstanding G.O. Ms. No.783 dated 09.10.1998, it is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai[1], Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra[2], and Govt. of A.P. v. Syed Akbar[3] that, if land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose is achieved, the rest of the land can be used for any other public purpose and, even 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 envisaged in the directive principles of the Constitution. As held by the Supreme Court in Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh[4], C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. To the Govt. of T.N.[5] and Govt. of A.P. v. Syed Akbar3, the acquired land having stood vested in the State and compensation having been paid, the claimant was not entitled to seek restitution of possession either on the ground that the original public purpose had ceased to be in operation or that the land could not be used for any other public purpose. Even, de hors G.O. Ms. No. 783 dated 09.10.1998 whereby the Board Standing Orders were amended, it is well settled law that the original owner of the land, which is the subject matter of acquisition, cannot, as a matter of right, claim that the unutilized portion of the land should be re-conveyed to him, more so when the land can be used for any of the public purposes envisaged in the directive principles of the Constitution. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order does not necessitate interference. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 12.03.2009 Nsr [1] (1997) 5 SCC 432 [2] (1996) 6 SCC 405 [3] (2005) 1 SCC 558 [4] (2003) 1 SCC 335 [5] (1997) 2 SCC 627