THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.10903 of 2005 Dated: 03.03.2010 Between: Chalapati Bhaskar Rao and others. .. Petitioners. And The District Collector, Khammam District, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: The petitioners claim that the respondents acquired their land admeasuring Ac.5.06 gts. in S.No.519/2 situated at Gopalapuram (Banda Palem), Velugumetla Revenue village, Khammam District, in the year 1970, by issuing notifications dated 30.11.1970 under the Land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of excavation of Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canal, and compensation was also paid to them. However, out of total extent of Ac.5.06 gts. of land acquired from them, only an extent of Ac.2.11 gts. is being utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, and still Ac.2.35 gts. of land remained unutilized and, as such, they seek a direction to the respondents to re-convey the unutilized land in their favour, as the construction of left canal of Nagarjuna Sagar Project has already been completed. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the land of the petitioners was acquired purely for public purpose, and suitable compensation was already paid for the said lands. It is also stated that in identical cases, the writ petitions filed by similarly situated persons were dismissed, on the ground of long lapse of time. The petitioners herein also filed the present writ petition after a lapse of more than three decades. When the matter came up for hearing on 02.03.2010, none appeared for the petitioners, and even today, there is no representation on their behalf. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that in the judgment in Govt. of A.P. and Anr. vs. Syed Akbar[1], the Supreme Court has categorically held that when once land is acquired for public purpose, it cannot be re-conveyed. Admittedly, in the instant case, the land of the petitioners was acquired for public purpose and suitable compensation was also paid. In the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra, it was held that when the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and is vested in the State Government, the question of re-conveying the land to the erstwhile owners to whom adequate compensation was paid does not arise. Apart from that, it is represented that in identical cases, the writ petitions filed by similarly situated persons were dismissed on the ground of long lapse of time, and in the case on hand also, the petitioners have, in fact, approached this Court after a lapse of more than three decades. Thus, in these circumstances, I find no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 03.03.2010 v v [1] 2005(1) ALT SC 36