D ANANTHAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Agricultural land of petitioners admeasuring Acs.8.02 guntas in survey No.223 of Yenugonda village of Mahabubnagar Mandal and District was acquired in 1965 for M/s.Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills Company Limited, the third respondent herein. During the acquisition as required under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), the third respondent executed an agreement, dated 24.09.1965, with the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Clause 3(d) thereof obligates third respondent to use the land for construction of quarters of the employees and purposes incidental to industrial activity within a period of three years from the date of transfer of land to third respondent. The allegation is that third respondent did not use the land within three years. The petitioners filed W.P.No.6298 of 1990 seeking reconveyance of land but Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition giving liberty to petitioners to seek redressal before the Government by making an application. The petitioners then filed an application to the District Collector for restoration of land, which is said to be still pending. In the meanwhile, third respondent executed a gift deed in favour of fifth respondent, Society, but subsequently filed a suit being O.S.No.34 of 1984 for declaration to nullify the same gift deed, dated 10.06.1977 in favour of fifth respondent. The suit was dismissed on 26.08.1994, against which an appeal being A.S.No.1596 of 1994 before this Court is still pending. During pendency of the said appeal, third respondent made an application to the Government to extend time limit for two years in relaxation of clause 3(d) of the agreement executed by them under Section 41 of the Act. On due consideration of the same, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.695, dated 15.10.2005, extending time limit for a period of two years from the date of issue of said order. Assailing the same, petitioners filed the present writ petition for its invalidation as being violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to respondents to re-transmit the land in survey No.223 to the petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently contends that the impugned Government Order extending time limit in favour of third respondent is without power and illegal. He would urge that the same is vitiated by legal malice as the Government allowed time limit for extraneous reasons. He submits that as the third respondent has not utilised the land for a period of over forty years, the petitioners have an enforceable right to seek reconveyance of the land. According to the learned counsel as per Rule 5(3) of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, third respondent could not have transferred land to fifth respondent without prior sanction of Government. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries submits that when once the land is acquired duly paying compensation as awarded by Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), the land owner has no right to seek reconveyance nor the Government has such power to reconveyance. Learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader have placed reliance on decisions of this Court as well as Supreme Court in support of their contentions.

(3.) Two points need to be examined. Whether the Government is entitled to take back the land from third respondent for violation of conditions of agreement under Section 41 of the Act? And whether after resuming the land from the third respondent, the Government has any duty to restore/reconvey the land to the petitioners, who claimed right for such reconveyance?