PUVVADA SUSHEELAMMA Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of Ac.140.44 cents, including the land to an extent of 0.78 cents in S.No. 69/2 of Pellur Village belonging to the petitioner, was acquired by the Government for Nagarjuna Sagar Project from various landholders. After completion of the project since it was felt that some of the lands acquired were not necessary for the project, those lands seem to have been re-conveyed to the concerned landowners on their repaying the amount of compensation paid to them. Since the land of the petitioner was not utilized in the construction of the project she made a request to the respondents to re-convey 0.78 cents in S.No. 69/2 acquired from her, as the said land is kept vacant. As she did not receive any response from the respondents she got issued a registered notice through an advocate to the respondents on 9.5.1995, seeking re-conveyance of the land acquired from her. By the communication Rc.No. B1/ 3670/95 dated 28.8.1995, the District Collector (2nd respondent) informed that her request cannot be considered. Questioning the said communication, petitioner filed this writ petition.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the land acquired from the petitioner is not being used for the purpose for which it was intended and since the Government is contemplating to grant pattas of that land to some of the members of the weaker Sections in the society, and since the petitioner is prepared to return the amount of compensation awarded to her to the respondents, she is entitled to re-conveyance of the land as per BSO.90(32) and so the respondents may be directed to re-transfer the said land to the petitioner, by placing strong reliance on M. Venkanna v. District Collector (Land Acquisition), , where a direction was given to re-convey the land to the original owner, inasmuch, as some of the acquired lands were already re-conveyed to some of the erstwhile owner on the ground that they are not required for the purpose for which they were acquired, and that refusal to re-convey the land of the petitioner only violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that since the land acquired from the petitioner also stood vested in the Government, respondents can utilize the said land for any other public purpose, though it initially was acquired for the purpose of Nagarjuna Sagar Project, and so question of re-transfer of the land to the petitioner does not arise, merely because the land of some other persons was re-transferred to them, in view of the ratio in Government of A.P. v. Syed Akbar, , where the Apex Court after considering the scope of BSO.90(32), rejected the contention of the petitioners therein that they are entitled to re-conveyance of the land which is not utilized by the Government for the purpose for which it was acquired.