GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. SYED AKBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 2-1-1998 passed in WP No.33171 of 1997.

(2.) The rank of the parties is as arrayed in the writ petition.

(3.) A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows: The petitioner, Syed Akbar was the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 in S.No.54 situated in Kakaguda village of Secunderabad Cantonment, which is abutting Secunderabad-Karimnagar Road on the western side. The said land was purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 11-8-1993. On the request made by the Resident Engineer, Special R & B ADB Division, Hyderabad, her in after referred to as the Acquiring Body, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (general), Nampally, Hyderabad initiated land acquisition proceedings and acquired an extent of 1,573 Sq. yards in S.No.54/2 in Kakaguda village, Secunderabad Mandal, under 4(1) Notification which was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, Hyderabad No.79, dated 8-8-1994 for purpose of improvement and rehabilitation of Hyderabad-Karimnagar-Ramagundam Road, Curvey Improvement from KM 11/6 to 12/0. Out of 1573 Sq. yards, the extent of the petitioner's land that was effected under the acquisition was 968 Sq. yards (8 guntas). Possession of the land acquired was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn handed over the same to the Acquiring Body on 21-6-1995. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award No.5/96 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,400.00 per Sq. yards. Dissatisfied with the said amount, the petitioner sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which is pending before the civil Court. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition was that though an extent of 1,573 sq. yards was acquired and handed over, the Acquiring Body utilised only an extent of 424 Sq. yards for straightening the curve, keeping the rest of the land vacant. Later the Acquiring Body felt that the remaining unutilised portion of land was no longer required. Accordingly, the Resident Engineer, R&B addressed a letter dated 27-12-1996 to the Land Acquisition Officer (Special Collector) informing that it is difficult for them to protect the said unused land from future encroachments. The petitioner having come to know of this fact, made representations dated 29-1-1997 and 6-6-1997 to the District Collector, Hyderabad and the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer requesting to re-assign the said land to him and he is prepared to pay back the compensation recieved by him together with interest at 12% and give up his claim for enhancement of compensation to the extent of unused portion of land. According to the petitioner, the authorities were taking steps to hand over the said land to third parties. Aggrieved by the incorrect attitude of the authorities, the petitioner filed WP No.14062 of 1997 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not re-assigning the unused land as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the authorities to reassign the unused land to him. The grounds raised therein by the petitioner were that as per the Boards Standing Order 90(32), it is incumbent on the part of the authorities that in case the land acquired is found not required, it shall be offered first to the parties with whom the proprietary rights had originally vested. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 4-7-1997 directing the 2nd respondent-Land Acquisition Officer to consider and dispose of the request of the petitioner for reassignment of the unused land in the light of the Board Standing Order 90(32) and in the light of the letter dated 27-12-1996 addressed by the Acquiring Body after calling for a report form the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad within six months and further directing that the unused land shall not be alienated to third parties pending disposal of the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the above direction, the petitioner also made representation dated 17-7-1997 to the respondents seeking re-assignment. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Land Acquisition Officer instead of complying with this Court's order dated 4-7-1997 rejected his representation by his proceedings dated 18-10-1997 observing that the government requires the unused land for construction of Mandal Revenue Office complex. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed WP No,33171 of 1997. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the unused piece of land is a small strip which is not suitable for construction of any building; the attitude of the authorities in taking a stand that the unused land is required for construction of MRO Office is contrary to the directions given by this Court in WP No. 14062 of 1997, the authorities not right in placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala & others v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another, AIR 1997 SC 2703.