The Division Bench dismissed a writ appeal challenging a Single Judge's order upholding Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held that re-conveyance is not available for unused acquired land and found no merit in the appeal.
Writ appeal dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA
GHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2012
DATED : 07.11.2012
Between:
Vempati Peda Venkateswarlu and others. … Appellants
And
Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda district And others.
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2012
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble single Judge in W.P.No. 18394 of 2003 dated 17.07.2012, which was filed by the appellants, praying for writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.E1/3006/97 of the 1st respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, A.P.(TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F, and also Assignment Rules, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents not to give effect to the same and direct them to assign/sell to them 18 guntas of land at the curve portion of the R & B road at Damarcherla Village and Mandal, Nalgonda district, which earlier belongs to them and contiguous to their land in Sy.Nos.686, 687, 688 and 689 of the said village.
The Hon’ble single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land acquired vests in the Government absolutely, and the land acquired for a
public purpose could be utilized for any other public purpose, and cannot be re-assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner merely on the ground that the acquired land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. His Lordship also dealt with the decisions cited by the appellants i.e., in Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil and Anr., v. State of Maharashtra and ors .[1] ; Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh and Ors .[2] ; C.Padma v. Dy.Secy. to the Govt. of T.N .[3] ; and Koppula Narasiah and ors. V. Government of A.P., Irigation and CAD Department and ors .[4] and came to the conclusion that the petitioners/appellants have no right to claim re-conveyance of the land in their favour and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Hon’ble single Judge, this appeal is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants tried to impress upon us that if the respondents authorities are not going to use the acquired land in question, they should re-convey the same in favour of the original land owners i.e., the appellants herein.
As the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has already been settled by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, we do not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, it appears that the appeal is devoid of merit as the order so passed by the Hon’ble single Judge does not suffer any illegality or irregularity.
In view of the above circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
_________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 07.11.2012
TNB / KV
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
W.A. NO. 1308 OF 2012
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
07..11..2012
3 issues framed by the court
Whether reverted-acquired-land-can-be-re-conveyed-to-original-owners-if-govt-does-not-utilize-it
Whether-acquired-land-vests-absolutely-in-government-under-section-16-of-Land-Acquisition-Act
Whether-writ-petition-for-declaration-of-illegality-was-maintainable
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and orsReferred¶19
(1996) 6 SCC 405 · Who else cites this
Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh and OrsReferred¶19
AIR 2003 SC 234 · Who else cites this
C.Padma v. Dy.Secy. to the Govt. of T.NReferred¶19
(1997)2 SCC 627 · Who else cites this
Koppula Narasiah and ors. V. Government of A.P., Irigation and CAD Department and orsReferred¶19
2000 n(6) ALT 337
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vempati Peda Venkateswarlu and others
Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
