HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.18016 of 2002 Dated: 10-02-2011 Between: K.R.Gowda Reddy …Petitioner AND The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.18016 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents for re-conveyance of land to an extent of Ac.5.12 cents, situated in Sy.No.267/1 of Kadivella Village, Kurnool District, which was earlier acquired through notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in which, an award was passed being Award No.22 of 1978, dated 12.3.1979. Upon the request made by the petitioner to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation, the matter was referred to civil Court in L.A.O.P.No.52 of 1983, in which, the compensation was also enhanced by the Subordinate Judge, Adoni on 28.9.1984. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. I have gone through the material available on record. It is the case of the petitioner that though the land was acquired by paying compensation for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections of the society, it was left unused and therefore, he was making representations to the District Collector for re-conveyance of the acquired land from the year 1990 and the last such representation was made on 14.11.2000. Upon the representation of the petitioner, the District Collector requested the Revenue Divisional Officer to inspect the acquired land and to submit a report. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a report on 1.7.2001 recommending for re-conveyance of the land to the petitioner, who is the original owner. But, according to the petitioner, so far, the same has not been re-conveyed. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that on the representation made by the petitioner, a report was called for by the District Collector and accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted a report to the District Collector, Kurnool on 1.7.2001 for re- conveying the land to the petitioner on payment of market value determined on the basis of sales statistics for the preceding three years. The District Collector directed the Tahsildar, Yemmiganur Mandal for keeping the land under the custody of the Mandal Revenue Inspector for protection till the final orders are passed. It is stated that since the Supreme Court as well as this Court categorically held that though the land acquired by the Government was not utilized for the purpose for which it was required, it may be utilized for other purpose, but the Government cannot re-convey the land to the original owner, no action has been taken in the matter. It is now well-settled that once the land is acquired, it vests in the Government free from all encumbrances. Unutilized land cannot be re-conveyed or re-assigned to erstwhile owner by invoking the Board Standard Order No.90, para 32 of the Board of Revenue (see Government of A.P. & another v. Syed Akbar {2004 (8) Supreme 621 = 2005(1) SCC 558}). In the absence of any vested right in the petitioner being erstwhile owner for re-conveying the land in his favour, no mandamus as such can be issued. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 10, 2011 Tsr.