V RAMANJANEYULU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KHAMMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule nisi. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Writ Petition was heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The subject land was originally owned by the petitioner and the land was acquired by the State for the public purpose. There is no controversy that the subject land is vested absolutely in the State after going through the procedure envisaged under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1978 itself. It seems that the subject land could not be put to the use for the purpose for which it was acquired. The petitioner made a representation to the State Authorities to reconvey the subject land to him vide his representation dated 25-2-1990. The request of the petitioner was not acceded to by the State Authorities. As the matter stood thus, the present writ petition was filed praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent the District Collector in taking steps to allot the subject land to third parties instead of considering and reconveying the subject land to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to the first respondent, District Collector to reconvey the land to the petitioner.

(3.) The writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to Government, (1997) 2 SCC 627 and State of Kerala v. Bhaskar Pillai, AIR 1997 SC 2703. The Supreme Court in C. Pamela's case (supra) held that as the acquired land has been vested in the State and compensation has been paid to the owners, thereafter, the owners are not entitled to reconveyance or restitution of the land on the ground that the original public purpose had ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for any other purpose. Further, the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Pillai's case (supra) held that permitting the sale of unused acquired land to the erstwhile owner under an executive order issued by the Government is invalid. The petitioner has utterly failed to demonstrate or establish existing right to seek writ of mandamus. It is needless to state that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is essentially meant to enforce existing rights. Particularly an applicant for writ of mandamus shall demonstrably show what he has existing right to seek mandamus obligating the State Authorities to perform a corresponding duty. As on to-day, the petitioner does not possess any right or interest in the subject land. If that is so, it is well within the domain of administrative powers of the State to decide how the unused acquired land should be disposed of. Even assuming that there is a proposal by the District Collector to dispose of the unused acquired land in favour of certain third parties, that fact itself would not vest any enforceable right in the petitioner to seek writ of mandamus. In that view of the matter, I should state that the writ petition is misconceived.