VEMPATI PEDA VENKATESWARLU Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners owned land measuring Acs.2.21 guntas situated in Sy. Nos. 686 to 689 of Damarcherla Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. A curve shape road was laid through their lands after acquiring the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Again in order to make the road straight Ac.0.18 guntas land in Sy. No. 713 belonging to the 5th Respondent herein was acquired pursuant to a draft notification published in A.P. Gazette dated 10-07-2000 under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 made on 15-07-2000. The 5th Respondent, who lost the land, submitted a representation to allot alternative land in the old road in lieu of compensation. The proposal was approved by the R&B Department, which is the requisitioning department. Accordingly, permission was accorded by the District Collector vide Letter No. G1/2738/2002, dated 16-09-2002. Thereupon, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, the 1st Respondent herein issued orders in Proceedings No. E1/3006/97, dated -12-2002 allotting 18 guntas of land existing in R&B road in favour of the 5th Respondent herein. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for Petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 and Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for the 5th Respondent.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli (for brevity, 'Revenue Act') and the Assignment Rules. According to him, whenever agricultural or pasteurised land, which is acquired for public benefit, is not required, patta thereof should be granted in favour of the person from whom the said land was acquired, provided he has consented to refund the compensation originally paid to him. The counsel would place reliance on the provisions of Section 54A of the Revenue Act. He would contend that the petitioners are entitled for restoration of land by granting patta in their favour, since the land acquired from them was no more required for public purpose.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the counsel for the 5th Respondent while refuting the aforesaid contentions would submit that the petitioners are not entitled for restoration of the land. They would urge that lands of the petitioners were acquired long time back and are vested in the Government. According to them, when once the land is vested in the Government, it is open for the Government to deal with the said property in an appropriate manner even if the notified purpose has ceased. The land was legally allotted in favour of the 5th Respondent who had accepted the same in lieu of payment of compensation.