Dismissed

Potu Hanumaiah v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Secretary Revenue

Telangana HC3 Mar 2011WP/6759/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, who claimed ownership of land acquired in 1981 for a cattle breeding farm, sought its reconveyance citing non-use and offered compensation. Challenging the District Collector's rejection, the Court held that once land is acquired, it vests in the Government and cannot be re-conveyed under Board Standard Order No.90.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

Potu Hanumaiah Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh rep by its… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.6759 of 2004

¶3

Dated: 03-03-2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Potu Hanumaiah Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and Another.

AND

…Petitioner

Respondents

This Court made the following:

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY

¶11

W.P.No.6759 of 2004

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.31.07 cents situated in Ramatheertham Village hamlet of Rajupalem Lakshampurama Revenue Village, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District filed the present writ petition stating that the land to an extent of Ac.160.51 cents including the land of the petitioner was acquired by Government for establishment of Ongole Cattle Breeding Farm during the year 1981 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was also passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 7.2.1983. As the land which was acquired was not put to use for the purpose for which it was acquired, the petitioner filed a representation on 4.5.1999 before the second respondent-District Collector seeking re-conveyance of the acquired land by receiving the compensation amount paid to the petitioner. On rejection of the request of the petitioner by the second respondent holding that the land once acquired cannot be re-conveyed, the present writ petition is filed.

¶14

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is admitted that the Government took possession of the land to an extent of Ac.103.33 cents under surplus in R.L.Puram Village of Chimakurthi Mandal and that the said land was handed over to the Animal Husbandry Department for Cattle Breeding Farm at Ramatheerdham. As per the requisition made by the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Ongole, an extent of 160.51 cents of land in various survey numbers in R.L.Puram Village was acquired and a compensation of Rs.7,31,000/- was paid to the land owners by passing an award. The

¶15

Animal Husbandry Department has developed cattle breeding farm in the said acquired land. The Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry has developed cattle breeding farm in the acquired land and it was in existence for about more than 15 years till it is shifted to Chadalawada of Nagulappalapadu Mandal. Since Black Granite mineral was available in the acquired land, Government took a decision to allot the acquired land to the Andhra Pradesh Mining Development (P) Limited for mining operations and until then, the land will be utilized for grazing the fodder for the cattle and construction of sheds etc. It is stated that since the land was not kept idle and has been utilizing for grazing the cattle and as the Government decided to allot the said land to the A.P. Mineral Development (P) Limited as the land was identified to be having Black Granite mineral, the request of the petitioner for reconveyance of the land cannot be considered.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

¶17

A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.6 of 2003, dated 11.6.2003 and the Supreme Court categorically held that once the land is acquired, it vests in the Government free from all encumbrances. Unutilized land cannot be re-conveyed or re-assigned to erstwhile owner by invoking the Board Standard Order No.90, para 32 of the Board of Revenue (see Government of A.P. & another v. Syed Akbar {2004 (8) Supreme 621 = 2005(1) SCC 558}).

¶18

Hence I see no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

¶20

MARCH 03, 2011 Tsr.

Potu Hanumaiah v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Secretary Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Potu Hanumaiah v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Secretary Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunkara Eswaramba Vs Potluri Madhusudhana Rao [died]

K.Sudheer Vs G.Hari Prasad

N. Naga Durga Satyanarayana ( died ) Vs Buddiraju Lakshmana Rao

Badi Bee Vs The District Revenue Officer

Smt. P. Urmila, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ganduri Shanker Vs Govt.of A.P.