GOV OF A P Vs. SYED AKBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned order made by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 411 of 1998.

(2.) The few facts which are relevant and necessary for the disposal of this appeal are the following: an extent of 1573 sq. yds. in survey No. 54/2 of Kakaguda village in Hyderabad district was acquired by the State for improvement of Hyderabad-Karimnagar-Ramagundam road which included the land of the respondent to the extent of 8 guntas (968 sq. yds. ). After completing the acquisition proceedings, the possession of the said land was taken. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined @ Rs. 1400 per sq. yds. , the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Land Acquisition Act') seeking enhancement of compensation amount and the reference is pending disposal before the Reference court.

(3.) Out of the land so acquired, only 424 sq. yds. , of land was utilized and the rest of the land remained vacant. The Resident Engineer (Roads and Buildings) addressed a letter dated 27.12.1996 to the Land Acquisition Officer (Special Collector) informing him that it was difficult to protect the unused land from future encroachment. Having come to know about this letter, the respondent made representations to the District Collector to re-assign unused land to him and that he was prepared to reimburse the compensation that had been received by him along with interest. He also indicated that he was prepared to give up his claim for enhancement of compensation to that extent of land. There was no response from the collector. The respondent filed a writ petition No. 14062/97 in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the authorities to re-assign the unused land to him. He based his claim on the standing Order No. 90 (32) of the A. P. Board of Revenue. A learned Single Judge of the High court disposed of the writ petition on 4.7.1997 directing the District Collector to consider the request of the respondent for re-assigning of the unused land in the light of the order of the board of Revenue aforementioned having regard to the letter of the Resident Engineer dated 27.12.1996 and by collecting the amount of compensation already paid with 12% interest. Pursuant to the directions given in Writ petition No. 14062 of 1997 the respondent made representation to the authorities seeking re-assignment of unused land. The District Collector by his order dated 18.10. 1997 rejected the said representation, holding that the said land was suitable for construction of Mandal office. In this order the District Collector referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another [ (1997) 5 SCC 432) , and Sri Gulam Mustafa and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others [air 1977 sc 448]. As against this order of the District collector the respondent filed another writ petition No. 33171 of 1997 in the High Court. The learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions of the parties, by order dated 2.1.1998, allowed the writ petition directing the authorities to hand over the unused portion of the land to the respondent by collecting the amount of compensation already paid with interest at the rate of 12%. It may be added here itself that para 32 of the Board's Standing order No. 90 was amended by the Government Order dated 9.10. 1998 to the effect that in case the land acquired remains unused for any reason, it could be utilized for any other public purpose as deemed fit. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the State filed a writ appeal before the High Court. By the impugned appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court held that apart from the Board's standing order 90 (32) , Section 54-A of the andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') also supported the case of the respondent. The Division Bench also took the view that the proposal to construct Mandal Revenue Office building in the unused land was an after-thought and was made with a view to circumvent the order passed by the learned Single Judge and even otherwise, the unused land in question was so small that it would not be sufficient to construct any building. Having held so, the Division Bench of the high Court dismissed the writ appeal by the judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.