Supreme Court of India
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR.versusSYED AKBAR
- Citation
- 2004 INSC 661
- Decided
- 19 November 2004
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SHIVARAJ V PATIL
Holding
Land acquired under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act vests absolutely in the Government and cannot be reconveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order; the Board’s Standing Order lacks statutory force and Section 54‑A is applicable only upon a competent authority’s declaration that the land is no longer required for any public purpose.
Summary
The State of Andhra Pradesh had acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a road project, but a portion remained unused. The original owner, Syed Akbar, sought reconveyance of the unused portion relying on Standing Order No. 90(32) of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue. A single High Court judge directed the authorities to re‑assign the land, but the Division Bench reversed, holding that the Standing Order and Section 54‑A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act permitted such reconveyance. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act the land vests absolutely in the Government, free of encumbrances, and may be used for any public purpose but cannot be re‑assigned to the former owner merely by executive order; the Board’s Standing Order has no statutory force and Section 54‑A applies only when a competent authority declares the land no longer required for any public purpose, which was not shown. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the writ petition dismissed and the suit for reconveyance set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether a direction can be issued to re‑assign unused land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act to the original owner when acquisition proceedings are final.
- Whether Standing Order No. 90(32) of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue and Section 54‑A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act can be invoked to reconvey such land.
Legislation cited
- Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Acts. 54-A
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 16, s. 18, s. 48
Subjects
land acquisitionreconveyanceunused landstanding orderSection 54-Apublic purposecompensationSupreme Court
Judgment
A GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR.
v.
SYED AKBAR
NOVEMBER 19, 2004
B
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SR1KR1SHNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
S.16-Acquisition ofland for a specific public purpose-Land remaining
c unutilized-Reassignment of to original owner-Held, land acquired vests
in Government-Land acquired for a public purpose can be utilized for
any other public purpose and cannot be re-assigned or reconveyed to
original owner merely on the basis of an executive order-Standing Order
No. 90(32) of A.P. Board of Revenue.
D
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act :
S. 54-A-Agricultural land acquired under Land Acquisition Act-
Remaining unutilized-Reassignment of to original owner-Held, the section
can be attracted only if land acquired for public benefit is no longer
E required not necessarily for the specific purpose for which it was acquired;
and a decision to that effect is made by competent authority-Land
Acquisition Act, 1894-S. l 6.
Certain lands of the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 6546 of 1999
F were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. During the pendency
· of the reference made at the instance of the respondent for enhancement
of the compensation, he came to know that a part of the land acquired
was lying unutilised. He sought re-assignment of the unutilized land
relying on Standing Order No. 90(32) of the A.P. Board of Revenue. His
claim was rejected by the authorities. But, his writ petition was allowed
G by the Single Judge. The State Government filed appeal before the
Division Bench of the High Court. Meanwhile State Government amended
para 32 of the Board's Standing Order No. 96 providing that the untilised
acquired land could be utilized for any other public purposes. However,
the Division Bench dismissed the appeal holding that in view of Board's
H Standing Order No. 90(32) and s. 54-A of the A.P. (Telangana Area)
208
GOVT. OF A.P. v. SYED AKBAR 209
Land kevenue Act, the respondent was entitled to re-assignment of the A
unutilised land. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the present appeal.
A building belonging to respondent No. 1 in CA No. 4110 of 2000
was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and compensation
was paid. The scheme for which the building was acquired, was abandoned B
and the building was leased out to respondent No. 2. Respondent No.
1 sought reconveyance of the building. His claim was rejected. He filed
a suit, relying on Board's Standing Order No. 90(32). The suit was
decreed. The State Government being unsuccessful in the first appeal
as also in the second appeal, filed the present appeal.
c
On the questions: whether direction could be given to the State
authorities to re-assign unused land to the original owner which was
duly acquired by the authorities and regarding which the acquisitiop
proceedings had become final except that the reference was pending
before the Reference Court only with regard to enhancement of D
com(>fnsation and whether the Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and
Section 54-A of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act can be
applied for reassignment of the unused land in favour of the original
owner.
Allowing the appeals, the Court E
HELD : 1. From the position of law made clear in the decisions of
this Court, it follows that (1) under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition
Act 1894, the land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free all
encumbrances; (2) the land acquired for a public purpose could be F
utilized for any other public purpose; and (3) the acquired land which
is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be re-
assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of ap
executive order. [218-D-E]
State ofKera/a and Ors. v. M Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., [1997) 5 SCC G
432; Chandraguada Ramgonda Patil & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 405 and Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant
Singh & Ors., [2003) 1 SCC 35, relied on.
State of Kera/a and Ors. v. M Bhaskaran Pillai and Anr., [1997) 5 H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A sec 42 and Sri Gu/am Mustafa and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
AIR (1977) SC 448, referred to.
2.1. It has not been shown that Standing Order No. 90(32) of the A.P.
Board of Revenue bears any statutory force. Even otherwise, as per para
B 32 of the said Order, the land acquired, no longer required for the public
purpose for which it was acquired, could not be disposed of in favour of
any person other than the citizen of India without the sanction of the
Government. If the land acquired for the public purpose is specifically
relinquished, such land could be disposed ofas stated in the said paragraph.
In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to shmv that the part of the
C acquired land which remained unused was relinquished by the
Government. Besides, by virtue of the amendment to para 32 brought
about by G.O. Ms. No. 783 dated 9.10.1988, in case the land is not used for
the purpose for which it was acquired due to any reason, it can be utilized
..
for any other public purpose as deemed fit. [218-F-H; 219-B, D-E]
D 2.2. Section 54-A of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act
can be attracted only in a case where agricultural land acquired for
public benefit is no longer required not necessarily for the specific
purpose for which it was acquired. Added to this, that the land is no
more required is a decision required to be made by the competent
E authority. Mere letter of Resident Engineer that the unused land is no
more required is not enough. [219-H; 220-A-B]
3. Whether the unused remaining land out of the acquired land was
sufficient or not for the purpose of construction of Mandal Revenue
Office could not be decided by the High Court. It was for the competent
F authorities to decide ab.out the same. The High Court was not right in
saying that the proposal to construct the Mandal Revenue Office on the .
unused land acquired was an after-thought. No material was placed on
record to attribute any ma/a fides on the part of the authorities or to
support the case that the proposal to build a Mandal Revenue Office was
G an after-thought. [220-B-D]
4. In view of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 6546/1999 dealing with
the Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and Section 54-A of the Act and
keeping in view the settled position of law, respondent No. l in Civil
Appeal No. 4110/2000 is not entitled to reconveyance of the building.
H [221-D-E]
GOVT. OF A.P. v. SYED AKBAR [PATIL, J.] 211
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6546 of A
1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.99 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A. No. 411 of 1998.
WITH B
C.A. No. 4110 of 2000.
Manoj Saxena, Mohanprasad Meharia and S.K. Mittra for the Appellant
in C.A. No. 6546/99.
c
Guntur Prabhakar and Ms. T. Anamika for the Appellant in C.A. No.
4110/2000.
R.N. Keshwani for the Respondent in C.A. No. 6546/99.
D
Subodh Markandaya, Ms. Chitra Markandaya for the Respondent No.
l in C.A. No. 4110/2000.
Sanjay Parikh and Ms. Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent No. 2 in C.A.
No. 4110/2000.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.:
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6546 OF 1999.
F
The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal questioning the validity and
correctness of the impugned order made by the Division Bench of the High
Court in Writ Appeal No. 411 of 1998.
The few facts which are relevant and necessary for the disposal of this G
appeal are the following:
An extent of 1573 sq. yds. in survey No. 54/2 of Kakaguda village in
Hyderabad district was acquired by the State for improvement ofHyderabad-
Karimnagar-Ramagundam Road which included the land of the respondent
.- to the extent of 8 guntas (968 sq. yds.). After completing the acquisition H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A proceedings, the possession of the said land was taken. Aggrieved by the
amount of compensation determined@Rs. 1400 per sq. yds., the respondent
sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short 'the Land Acquisition Act') seeking enhancement of compensation
amount and the reference is pending disposal before the Reference Court.
B ,.
Out of the land so acquired, only 424 sq. yds., of land was utilized and
the rest of the land remained vacant. The Resident Engineer (Roads &
Buildings) addressed a letter dated 27.12.1996 to the Land Acquisition
Officer (Special Collector) informing him that it was difficult to protect the
unused land from future encroachment. Having come to know about this
c letter, the respondent made representations to the District Collector to re-
assign unused land to him and that he was prepared to reimburse the
compensation that had been received by him along with interest. He also
:·
indicated that he was prepared to give up his claim for enhancement of
compensation to that extent of land. There was no response from the
D collector. The respondent filed a writ petition No. 14062/97 in the High
Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the authorities to re-assign the unused
land to him. He based his claim on the Standing Order No. 90 (32) of the
A.P. Board of Revenue. A learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed
of the writ petition on 4.7.1997 directing the District Collector to consider
the request of the respondent for re-assigning of the unused land in the light
E of the order of the Board of Revenue aforementioned having regard to the
letter of the Resident Engineer dated 27.12.1996 and by collecting the
amount of compensation already paid with 12% interest. Pursuant to the
directions given in Writ Petition No. 14062 of 1997 the respondent made
representation to the authorities seeking re-assignment of unused land. The
F District Collector by his order dated 18. l 0.1997 rejected the said
representation, holding that the said land was suitable for construction of
Mandal Office. In this order the District Collector referred to the judgments
of the Supreme Court in State of Kera/a and Others v. M Bhaskaran Pillai
and Another, [ l 997] 5 SCC 432, and Sri Gu/am Mustafa and Others v. State
of Maharashtra and Others, AIR (1977) SC 448. As against this order of
G the District Collector the respondent filed another writ petition No. 3317 l
of 1997 in the High Court. The learned single Judge, after considering the
contentions of the parties, by order dated 2.1.1998, allowed the writ petition
directing the authorities to hand over the unused portion of the land to the
respondent by collecting the amount of compensation already paid with ~,
H interest at the rate of l 2%. It may be added here itself that para 32 of the
GOVT. OF A.P. v. SYED AKBAR [PATIL, J.] 213
Board's Standing Order No. 90 was amended QY the Government Order A
dated 9.10.1998 to the effect that in case the land acquired remains unused
for any reason, it could be utilized for any other public purpose as deemed
fit. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the State filed a writ
appeal before the High Court. By the impugned appeal, the Division Bench
of the High Court held that apart from the Board's standing order 90(32), B
Section 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act
(for short 'the Act') also supported the case of the respondent. The Division
Bench also took the view that the proposal to construct Manda) Revenue
Office building in the unused land was an after-thought and was made with
a view to circumvent the order passed by the learned Single Judge and even
otherwise, the unused land in question was so small that it would not be C
sufficient to construct any building. Having held so, the Division Bench of
the High Court dismissed the writ appeal by the judgment which is under
challenge in this appeal.
The facts are not in dispute. The questions that arise for consideration D
are whether direction could be given to the appellants to re-assign unused
land to the respondent which was duly acquired by the authorities and the
acquisition proceedings had become final except that the reference is pending
before the Reference Court only with regard to enhancement of compensation
and whether the Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and Section 54-A of
the Act can be applied for reassignment of the unused land in favol:lr of the E
respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that once the land is
acquired in accordance with law which vests in the Government free from
all encumbrances, no direction could be given to re-convey the unutilized F
land which is part of the acquired land; Section 54-A of the Act is not at
all applicable to the facts of the present case; the Standing Order No. 90(32)
of the Board of Revenue has no statutory force and at any rate it cannot •
override the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and that the Division
Bench of the High Court was not correct in observing that the unused land
was not sufficient for the purpose of construction of the Manda! Revenue G
Officer; it was for the concerned authorities to examine the sufficiency or
otherwise of the available land.
In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions
supporting the impugned order for the very reasons stated in it. In his H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
.A argument, he reiterated the sub}llissions that were made before the High
Court. According to him, having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order exercising
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
B In order to appreciate the 1respective contentions advanced on behalf
of the parties, it would be useful to notice relevant portion of the Standing
Order No. 90(32) of Board of Revenue and Section 54-A of the Act.
The Board's standing order
c "32. Disposal of land which is no longer required for the public
purpose for which it was acquired.
Notes-{1) No land shall be disposed of, under this paragraph, to
any person other than the citizen of India, except by the Collector
or the Board and with the previous permission of State Government,
D every grant made under this paragraph shall be subject to the
condition that, if the land is alienated without the sanction of
Government in favour of any person other than a citizen of India,
the grant shall thereupon become null and void.
E
When land acquired for a public purpose, is subsequently
relinquished, it should be disposed of as follows:-
(i) If the land relinquished is likely to be again required for
F public purposes, it should be merely leased out for ~uch term
as may be considered, desirable in each case .
. '
(ii)
G (iii)
(iv) If the land is not declared unfit for permanent occupation
under clause (i) or (ii) above and was agricultural or pastoral
land at the time of the acquisition, it should be disposed of
in accordance with the following instructions which should
H
GOVT. OF A.P. v. SYED AKBAR [PATIL, J.] 215
not be deviated from without the previous sanction of State A
Government:-
Such lands should be notified for sale in public auction
by giving wide publicity in respect of the sales in the villages
by beat or tom-tom and affixing notice of sales in conspicuous B
places in the villages concerned. The date of sale should be
fixed allowing an interval of thirty days between the date of
publicity and the date of sale. The land should be sold by
public auction subject to the annual assessment. There shall
be no upset price except in the case of railway relinquished
lands where a minimum or upset price should be fixed in C
consultation with Railway Administration before auction. If
at the time of sale anybody puts forth his claim in respect of
any field either as an adjacent owner, or as an original owner
or as heir of the original owner, the sale of that field should
be stopped and his claim investigated and disposed of in the D
manner specified in sub-clause (2) and (3). If it is found that
his claim is not proved, the field should be sold by public
auction."
The amendment to paragraph 32 of Board's Standing Order No. 90(32)
brought about by G.O.Ms. No. 783 dated 9.10.1998 reads: E
"For paragraph 32 of B.S.O. 90, the following paragraph shall be
substituted, namely:-
PARA 32 Utilisation ofacquired lands for any other Public Purpose:
"The land acquired for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 shall be utilized for the same purpose for which it was
acquired as far as possible. In case, the land is not required for the
purpose for which it is acquired due to any reason, the land shall
be utilized for any other public purpose, as deemed it, including
afforestation."
G
Section 54-A of the Act reads:
"Procedure in respect of land acquired for purpose of public benefit
and no more required - When agricultural or pasturage land H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A acquired for public benefit is no longer required, the patta thereof
shall be made in the name of the person or his successor from whom
such land was acquired, provided he consents to refund the
compensation originally paid to him. If such person or his successor
does not take the land, it may be given on patta under Section 54."
B
It is neither debated nor disputed as regards the valid acquisition of
the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and
the possession of the land had been taken. By virtue of Section 16 of the
Land Acquisition Act, the· acquired land has vested absolutely in the \
Government free from all encumbrances. Under Section 48 of the Land
C Acquisition Act, Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any
land of which possession has not been taken. ln the instant case, even under
Section 48, the Government could not withdraw from acquisition or to re-
convey the said land to the respond~nt as the possession of the land had
already been taken. The position of law is well settled. In State of Kera/a
D and Ors. v. M Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., [1997] 5 sec 432, para 4 of the
said judgment reads:-
"4. In view of the admitted position that the land in question was
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by operation of
Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State
E free from all encumbrances. The question emerges whether the
Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is
settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after
the.public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used
for any other public purpose. In case there is not other public
F purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by
way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public
auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better
utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles
of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the
executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act
G and is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division
Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid.
Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose.
Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through,_,·
the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by getting
H a higher value."
GOVT. OF A.P. v. SYED AKBAR [PATIL, J.] 217
l ..
In that case, an extent of 1.94 acres of land was acquired in 1952 for A
construction of National Highway and the construction was completed in
1955 in 80 cents of land and the balance of land remained unused. The
remaining land was sought to be sold to the land owner at the same rate at
which the compensation was awarded under Section 11. This again was
challenged in the writ petitions. The Government tried to sustain the action B
on the basis of the executive order issued by the Government for permission
for alienation of the land. On these facts, the position oflaw was made clear
in para 4 extracted above. Thus, it is clear that under Section 16 of the Land
Acquisition Act, the acquired land should vest in the State free from all
encumbrances and that any executive order inconsistent with the provisions
of Land Acquisition Act was invalid. Further that if the land is acquired for C
a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land
could be used for any other public purpose. In our view, this decision
supports the case of the appellants fully.
In the case Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil & Anr. v. State of D
Maharashtra & Ors., [1996] 6 SCC 405, claim of the petitioner for restitution
of the possession of the land acquired pursuant to the resolution of the State
Government was rejected. In para 2, this Court observed thus:-
"2 ........ We do not think that this Court would be justified in making
direction for restitution of the land to the erstwhile owner's when E
the land was taken way back and vested in the ~unicipality free
from all encumbrances. We are not concerned with the validity of
the notification in either of the writ petitions. It is axiomatic that
the land acquired for a public purpose would be utilized for any
other public purpose, though use of it was intended for the original F
public purpose. It is not intended that any land which remained
unutilized, should be restituted to the erstwhile owner to whom
adequate compensation was paid according to the market value as
on the date of the notification. Under these circumstances, the High
Court was well justified in refusing to grant relief in both the writ G
petitions."
Yet in another recent decision, this Court in Northern Indian Glass
Industries v. Jaswant Singh & Ors., [2003] 1 SCC 335 referring to the case
of Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil (supra) and other cases held that "if the
land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open H ,-
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A to the State Government to take action but that did not confer any ·right on
the r.espondents to ask for restitution of the land". Paras l 0 and 11 of the
said judgment read thus:-
"10. In Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra,
[ 1996] 6 sec 405, it is stated that the acquired land remaining
B
unutilized was not intended to be restituted to the erstwhile owner
to whom adequate compensation was paid according to the market
value as on the date of notification.
11. Yet again in C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. To the Govt. of T.N,
c [1997] 2 sec 627, it is held that acquired land having vested in
the State and the compensation having been paid to the claimant,
he was not entitled to restitution of possession on the ground that
either original public purpose had ceased to be in operation or the
land could not be used for other purpose."
D
From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions,
it follows that (I) under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land
acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances;
(2) the land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for any other
public purpose; and (3) the acquired land which is vested in the Government
E free from all encumbrances cannot be re-assigned or re-conveyed to the
original owner merely on the basis of an executive order.
At the hearing, we specifically asked learned counsel for the respondent
whether the Board's Standing Order 90(32) was issued under any particular
F statute, the learned counsel was not able to point out to any provision of
law under which it was issued. He was not in a position to show that the
said order bears any statutory fo:-ce. Even otherwise, as per para 32 of the
said order, the land acquired, no longer required for the public purpose for
which it was acquired, could not be disposed of in favour of any person other
than the citizen of India and that too without the sanction of the Government.
G If the land acquired for the public purpose is specifically relinquished, such
land could be disposed of as stated in the said paragraph. If the land
relinquished is likely to be again required for public purposes, it should be
merely leased out for such term as may be considered desirable in each case.
If the acquired land was an agricultural land at the time of acquisition, it
H should be disposed of inviting for sale in public auction by giving wide
-
GOVT. OF A.P. v. SYED AKBAR [PATIL, J.] 219
publicity in respect of sale. If at the time of sale, anybody puts forth his claim A
in respect of any field either as an adjacent owner or as an original owner,
the sale of that field should be stopped and his claim investigated and
disposed of in the manner specified in sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of Note (2)
of the Board's order 90(32). If it is found that his claim is not proved, the
field should be sold by public auction. In the case on· hand, there is nothing B
on record to show that the part of the acquired land which remained unused
was relinquished by the Government. A letter of Resident Engineer stated
that the unused land was no more required cannot amount to relinquishment
of the said land by the competent authority. In order to make a claim under
para 32 of the said Board's Standing Order in the first place, it was necessary
that the competent authority had subsequently relinquished the unused land. C
After such relinquishment of the land, the land had to be notified for sale
in public auction. If at the time of sale of such land, the original owner made
a claim, sale could be stopped and his claim could be investigated and
thereafter the land was to be disposed of in the manner specified under the
said paragraph. Added to this, by virtue of the amendment to para 32 brought D
about by G .O:Ms. No. 783 dated 9.10.1998, the land for the public purpose
shall be utilized for the same purpose for which it was acquired as far as
possible and in case the land is not used for the purpose for which it was
acquired due to any reason, the land shall be utilized for any other public
purpose as deemed fit. It appears this amendment was not brought to the
notice of the High Court. E
Chapter V of the Act deals with occupation of khalsa land and right
of occupant. Under Section 54, procedure is prescribed for acquiring
unoccupied land. This Section enables a person to submit a petition to
Tehsildar if he is desirous of taking unoccupied land. On such application, F
the Tehsildar may in accordance with the rules made by the Government
give permission in writing for occupation. Section 54-A indicates the
procedure in respect of land acquired for the purpose of public benefit and
which is no more required. It is clear from plain and clear language of the
said Section that when an agricultural land acquired for public benefit is no G
longer required, the patta thereof shall be made in the name of the person
or his ~uccessor from whom such land was acquired provided he consents
to refund the compensation originally paid to him. This Section does not
say that the agricultural land acquired for public benefit is no longer required
for the purpose for which it is acquired. This Section can be attracted only
in a case where agricultural land acquired for public benefit is no longer H
A
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
required not necessarily for the specific purpose for which it was acquired.
Added to this, that the land is no more required is a decision required to -
be made by the competent authority. As in the present case, mere letter of
-
Resident Engineer that the unused land is no more required is not enough.
When the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act which is vested
.
B in the State Government free from all encumbrances, the question of
reconveying the land as claimed by the respondent could not be accepted
in view of the clear position of law stated in the decisions of this Court
aforementioned. Whether the unused remaining land out 9f the acquired
land was sufficient or not for the purpose of construction of Manda! Revenue
Office could not be decided by the High Court. It was for the competent
C authorities to decide about the same. The High Court, in our view, was not
right in saying that the proposal to construct the Manda! Revenue Office in
the unused land acquired was an after-thought. No material was placed on
record to attribute any malajides on the part of the authorities or to support
the case that the proposal to build a Manda! Revenue Office was an after-
D thought.
Thus viewed from any angle, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned
order. Consequently, it is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent
is dismissed. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
E CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4110 OF 2000
The building bearing No. 21/11683 situated at Kokarwadi, Rikabgunj,
Hyderabad belonging to respondent no. I was acquired by erstwhile
Hyderabad Government for Kokarwadi Scheme of the then City Improvement
p Board. The award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act on 25.7.1953
and compensation was paid to the respondent no. l. In 1956, the Andhra
Pradesh Housing Board was established and all the properties of the then
City Improvement Board stood transferred and vested in the Andhra Pradesh
Housing Board, the appellant herein. Since the Kokarwadi Scheme was
abandoned, the building in question was leased out to the respondent no.
G 2. The respondent no. I made representation to the appellant seeking
reconveyance of the building on payment of compensation amount with
interest relying on Standing Order No. 90(32) of the Board of Revenue. On
28:9.1979, appellant passed resolution for disposing of the property and
similar other properties to the tenants. On 6.2.1989, the appellant rejected
H the representation of the respondent no. l. Under the circumstances, the
~'
GOVT. OF A.P. v. SYED AKBAR [PATIL, J.] 221
respondent no. I-erstwhile owner of the building filed a original suit in City A
Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a mandatory injunction for re-conveyance
of the building and possession of the same. The appellant contested the suit.
The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent no. 1 relying on
the Standing Order No. 90(32) of the Board of Revenue. The respondent
no. 2 here who was in occupation of the property as a tenant was defendant B
no. 2 in the suit. The appellant filed first appeal before the 4th Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The second respondent did not,
prefer any appeal against the decree made by the trial court. The Addl. Chief
Judge dismissed the first appeal affirming the decree made by the trial court.
The appellant filed the second appeal before the High Court which was also
dismissed. Hence, this appeal. c
Learned counsel for the parties in this appeal also made similar
submissions that were made in Civil Appeal 6546 of 1999 brin~ing to our
notice facts of this case.
D
In the view we have taken in Civil Appeal No. 6546/1999 dealing with
the Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and Section 54-A of the Act and
keeping in view the settled position of law, this appeal is also entitled to
succeed. Under the circumstances it is unnecessary to deal with other
contentions. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
is set aside and the suit filed by respondent no. 1 (plaintiff) is dismissed with E
no order as to costs.
R.P. .Appeals allowed.
·' ~··
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search