The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.19560 of 2011 Date: 28-12-2011 Between: Kummithi Balarosi Reddy and others ..... Petitioners AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (L.A.) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.K.Rathangapani Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: GP for Irrigation & CAD The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed by some of the owners of the lands, which were acquired for construction of tail channel of SRBC, as far back as the year 1990 with the grievance that a part of the said acquired land is now sought to be used for construction of houses for weaker sections. The admitted position is that the petitioners’ lands were acquired in the year 1990 for construction of a tail channel under SRBC. The petitioners alleged that, instead of utilising the said land for the purpose for which it was acquired, the respondents are intending to use a part of the said acquired land for house sites. They apprehend that, if the acquired property is used for housing purpose, there is every possibility of their remaining property being inundated as free flow of water will be obstructed by construction of houses. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 wherein it is inter alia averred that an extent of Ac.17-20 cents in Survey No.55/5B of Banaganapalle Village was acquired, for construction of aqueduct of Muchatla Vagu for changing the direction of the course of Vagu due to formation of SRBC main canal, vide award, dated 20-03-1993 and; that the compensation amount was paid to the land owners. It is further averred that the Joint Collector has inspected the said land on 15- 06-2011 and noticed that the same is fit for provision of house sites and instructed to prepare a lay out in consultation with the Project Director, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Kurnool. It is further stated that construction of houses for weaker sections over the said land will not affect the free flow of water from the aqueduct of Muchatla Vagu and that there is no threat of submergence of the petitioners’ lands. It is further stated that even though the land was acquired, the petitioners have been unauthorisedly cultivating the same and that they have filed the present Writ Petition with a mala fide intention to prevent use of the said land for public purpose so that they can continue with unauthorised cultivation. Except expressing an apprehension that there is a likelihood of floods in the event of construction of houses over part of the acquired land, the petitioners have not supported their plea by filing any material such as expert’s opinion. Once the property is acquired after paying compensation, the land absolutely vests in the Government under Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners, who received compensation, have lost their title and interest over the acquired land. The State is, therefore, entitled to use the property for any public purpose. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, in the absence of any proof of the petitioners’ apprehension that construction of houses over a part of the acquired land may lead to inundation of their remaining lands, the respondents cannot be prevented from using the said acquired land for construction of houses for weaker sections, which, undoubtedly, is a public purpose. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is merit less and hence, the same is dismissed. As a sequel, interim order, dated 18-07-2011, extended by further order, is vacated and WPMP.No.23642 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 28th December, 2011 LUR