THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.21179 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.2.12 guntas situated in Survey No.100/EE of Somavaram Village, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. He states that the said land was acquired by the respondents in the year 1980, but was not used fully. Therefore, he claims to have made a representation for re-conveyance of the unutilized land, in vain and as such, he filed W.P.No.6274 of 1994 and this Court by order, dated 05.04.1994, disposed of the said writ petition directing the authorities concerned to consider the request of the petitioner for re-conveying the unutilized land. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Government and proceedings, dated 03.04.1995, were issued directing the authorities to re-convey the land to an extent of Acs.1.12 guntas. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that instead of implementing the orders of the Government, dated 03.04.1995, the first respondent, namely, the District Collector, Khammam, passed an order, dated 05.04.1997, rejecting his request for re-conveyance of the land. Questioning the action of the first respondent, he filed W.P.No.13552 of 1997 and this Court by order, dated 28.08.1997, set aside the order, dated 05.04.1997, observing that it does not preclude the Government to review the order, dated 03.04.1995, within a period of three months. But, however, no action has been taken so far in the matter and in the meanwhile, the respondents are trying to alienate the subject land to third parties. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions in this regard. The respondents filed a detailed counter in the matter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter that pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.13522 of 1997, dated 28.08.1997, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.204, dated 03.11.1997, withdrawing the earlier orders, dated 03.04.1995, . That pursuant to the amendment to BSO 90 (Paragraph 32), the land acquired for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be utilized as far as possible for the purpose for which it was acquired and in case, the land is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired due to any reason, the land shall be utilized for any other purpose, as deemed fit, including afforestation. Thus, it is stated that when once the land is acquired, it vests with the Government and it is for the Government to use the excess surplus land and the owners have no claim over the land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1978 for the purpose of excavating Wyra Major for NSP, after passing award and paying compensation. However, it appears, the land acquired was not fully utilized and as such, the petitioner filed a representation seeking re-conveyance of the unutilized land. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the respondents have considered the request of the petitioner for re- conveyance of the land and negated the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition more or less on similar grounds. It is settled principle of law that once the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation is paid to the landowners, it absolutely vests with the Government free from all encumbrances and if the land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Government is at liberty to make use of the land for any other public purpose. Therefore, the question of re-conveyance does not arise. A learned single Judge of this Court, while considering similar issue in the case of Koppula Narasaiah and another v. Government of A.P. and others[1], rejected the plea of the petitioners therein for re-conveyance of the land holding that once the land is acquired by the Government, the landowners lose right over it and the Government becomes entitled to deal with it. In the circumstances, the relief as prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:22.03.2010 VGB [1] 2000 (6) ALT 337