BAGAMMA Vs. GOVT OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-assign/re-convey the land or grant patta in favour of the petitioners for the land to an extent of Acs.4.15 gts. in Sy.No.110, Acs.24.34 gts. in Sy.No.106, Acs.12.34 gts. in Sy.No.125, Acs.7.22 gts. in Sy.No.124, Ac.10.00 gts. in Sy.No.55, Acs.17.00 gts. in Sy.No.56 (from whom it was acquired or their legal heirs or successors-in-interest) even without making an application from them, on condition of refund the compensation received by them as per Section 54-A of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F and as per the ratio laid down in 1999 (5) ALT 202 (D.B.).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who claim to be the owners of different parcels of land situated in Sy.Nos.110, 106, 125, 124, 55 and 56 of Raikod Mandal, Medak District, have filed the present writ petition on the premise that the then Government of Andhra Pradesh had acquired the land admeasuring Acs.600.00 situated in various Villages including the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of Bogulampally Project. The Government after following the due procedure, as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has passed the Awards and paid compensation. It is the further case of the petitioners that though the lands were acquired for the purpose of Bogulampally Project, subsequently, the lands which were sought to be irrigated under the said Project, have come under the Singoor Project and as a result of which, the purpose for which the lands of the petitioners were acquired initially has been defeated and the lands are no longer been used for the purpose for which they were acquired. Thereby, they have come up with the present Writ Petition seeking re-conveyance of the lands, which were acquired, and are relying on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court reported in GOVT. OF A.P., REVENUE DEPT., v. SYED AKBAR, 1999 5 ALT 202 (D.B.).

(3.) The respondents have filed their counter, mainly contending that the land acquisition has taken place in the year 1966 and full compensation was paid to the petitioners. The prayer for re-conveyance of lands, after lapse of four decades, cannot be granted. Even if the lands are not used for the original public purpose for which they were acquired, they can be used for other public purposes. Further, having received the compensation long back, the petitioners cannot now seek to re-convey the lands which were acquired, at this point of time.