ORDER
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J
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, herinafter 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/- 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 un-utilised 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, .
4. The sand taken by the authoriteis in the writ petition was that (i) when once
the land is acquired by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, possession of it was taken and compensation was paid, they have no power to withdraw the same eihter in respect of the whole extent of the land acquired or apart of it; (ii) whenonce a land is acquired for a specific public purpose and if it is not utilised for such purpose, the same can be utilised for some other public purpose; and (iii) after using a portion of the acquired land for making curve road as straight, the remaining piece of land can be utilised for construction of MRO Office complex. In support of this contention the authorities once again placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and others v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another (supra).
5. The learned single Judge after hearing both sides whose arguments on the points were nothing but reiteration of grounds urged in the pleadings found that the decision rendered in the case of Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) has no application to the case on hand for the reason that was a case which had arisen out of the land acquired from Kerala State and it is not sure whether there is any Board’s Standing Order in that State as in the case of Andhra Pradesh. The learned single Judge found that in this State a provision is made in the Board Standing Order, namely, BSO 90(32), according to which reconveyance can be made to the original owner as and when the purpose for which the land was acquired either entire land or a portion of it not used. But the original owner has to pay back the compensation he received along with 12% interest. Thus observing, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the respondents-authorities to hand over the remaining portion of the land to the petitioner by collecting the amount, whatever received by the petitioner towards compensation together with interest at 12% thereon. The learned single Judge further directed the petitioner to withdraw
the reference sought by him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which is pending before the civil Court. Aggrieved by this order, the State filed the present appeal.
6. Sri Madan Mohan, learned Government Pleader contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is arbitrary and illegal. The learned single Judge committed a mistake in holding that the Board Standing Order 90(32) applies to the case on hand. The learned single Judge committed a mistake in not taking into consideration the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala & others v. M.Bhaskaran Pillai (supra). When once the land is acquired, possession is taken and compensation is paid, it vests with the State absolutely. When once the property is vested, the same cannot be divested either by withdrawal or by reconveyance. He lastly contended that the unutilised land was subsequenlty found useful for some other public purpose, namely for construction of Mandal Revenue Office complex and as such reconveyance is not warranted.
7. As an answer to these contentions, Sri Raghavacharyulu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (respondent herein) contended that (i) the order of the learned single Judge is a just one; (ii) the petitioner is entitled for re-assignment of the un-utilised land as per Section 54-A of Andhra Pradesh (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317-Fasli; (iii) the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala & others v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another (supra) on facts has no application to the case on hand; (iv) the unutilised land is not at all useful or sufficient for construction of MRO Office as it is a strip abutting the main road, and the theory of utilising it for such construction is only invented subsequent to the orders passed by this Court in WP No.14062 of 1997, dated 4-7-1997; (v) the authorities should have
taken into consideration the preparedness of the petitioner to return the compensation together with interest at 12% p.a. thereon and also his offer to withdraw reference application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act pending before the civil Court; and (iv) no prejudice would be caused to the appellants-authorities of the un-utilised land is re-delivered or re-assigned to the petitioner. On the other hand, the same can be utilised by the petitioner by way of putting up of some shops to eke out his livelihood. Thus arguing, the learned Counsel sought the appeal be dismissed.
8. Admittedly after taking possession of 1,573 Sq.yards of land acquired, the Acquiring Body utilised only 424 Sq.yards for the purpose for which it was acquired and later felt that the remaining piece of land is no longer required by them and it is also difficult for them to protect the same from future encroachments or grabbing. Accordingly it addressed a letter to the authorities to take back the land in view of the above facts and revise the acquisition proceedings. After coming to know of this, the petitioner submitted a representation to the authorities seeking re-assignment of the un-utilised land which was rejected against which he filed WP No. 14062 of 1997 which was allowed giving certain directions as stated supra.
9. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court in WP No.14062 of 1997, dated 4-7-1997 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirmalgiri, was deputed to enquire as to the existence of the land in question and its extent, who in turn submitted a report dated 11-9-1997, nearly after two months seven days from the date of the order of this Court, which was followed by the report of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition dated 29-9-1997. After considering the said reports, the Collector, Hyderabad District in his proceedings No.D4/ 2341/93, dated 18-10-1997 passed an order rejecting the request of the petitioner
for re-assignment of the un-utilised land. On consideration, the learned single Judge found that the stand taken by the authorities in rejecting the request of the petitioner is quite incorrect. The learned single Judge took into consideration the decision in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) relied on by the authorities and found the same on facts has no application to the case on hand. The relevant portion of the above decision is extracted herein:
“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 free from all encubrances. 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 no other public 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 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 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 auction so that the public also gets benefited by getting higher value.”
10. The learned single Judge also considered the effect of the Board Standing Order 90(32) which entails an occupant to seek re-assignment of the land. Apart
from the above Board Standing Order, Sections 54 and 54-A of Andhra Pradesh (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F. upon which stress has been laid by Sri Raghava Charyulu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, also suggest a relief in favour of the petitioner. The said sections are extracted herein:
“Section 54. Procedure for acquiring unoccupied land:–(1) When any person is desirous of taking unoccupied land he shall before occupying the land submit a petition to the Tahsildar and obtain his permission in writing.
(2) On such petition being submitted, the Tahsildar may, in accordance with the rules made by the Government in this behalf from time to time, give permission in writing for occupation.
Section 54-A. Procedure in respect of land acquired for purpose of public and no more required :–When agricultural or pasturate land 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.”
11. Thus, Section 54-A, which was introduced by way of Amendment No.III of 1324-F envisages that when an agricultural land or pasturage land was acquired for public purpose and if the same is not required the patta thereof shall be made in the name of the person from whom it was acquired or to his successor-in-interest. All that is required is that the person who seeks patta shall refund the compensation originally paid to him along with interest at 12%.
12. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per
Section 54-A of the Act the un-ulilised land in question shall be re-assigned to the petitioner. To support his contention he placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of S.M. Yahya Quadri v. District Collector, 1996 (3) ALD 781, wherein it was, held as follows :
“When a land acquired is an agricultural land or a pasturage acquired for the public benefit, when once such a land acquired for the public benefit is no longer required, the patta thereof shall be made in the name of the person from whom such land was acquired. All the rights of the acquiring authority is thus subject to the implications of Section 54-A of the Act. The lawmakers have visualised that if an agricultural land or pasturage is acquired for public benefit and that purpose of the acquisition is frustrated or not fulfilled there is no gain-saying by the authority acquiring the land that it should be kept idle without allowing its utility for such purpose and thus mandates that it should be back to the person from whom it was acquired so that the utility cannot be lost. However, such a contingency will occur only if the ingredients of Section 54-A of the Act are fulfilled. In the present case if the plaintiff establishes that the defendants did no longer require the suit land for the public benefit for which it was acquired, it is open to him to get back the patta of the suit land transferred to his name …… (Para 21)
The expression ‘no longer required in Section 54-A of the Act has a simple meaning. It must be a requirement for a reasonable period for which the purpose of acquisition exists. Otherwise, the use of the expression ‘ no longer required’ was not necessary in the provision. When the lawmakers drafted and brought into force the provision they were mindful of the legal implications that when a land agricultural and
pasturage is acquired for a particular public benefit it was to be fulfilled within a reasonable period depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case or else to mandatorily transfer the patta to the owner or the person from whom the land was acquired. In that context the meaning of ‘no longer’ should be nothing more than no longer than the very purpose for which the land was acquired. The very purpose or the benefit for which the land was acquired should be nothing but the very notification issued under Section 3 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act equivalent to Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the General Land Acquisition Act. Otherwise, the use of the expression ‘no longer required’ becomes otiose or redundant or absurd…… (Para 23)
In the present case, the moment the defendants felt that the suit land was not required for constructing the maternity ward, it was at that stage they were to think whether the time bound programme for such acquisition was reasonable or not. The expression of the Land Acquisition Officer that it was no longer required was a real and true evidence of things to show that the land was not actually required to construct the maternity ward and, infact, such purpose was not fulfilled. In the context, ‘no longer required’ in the present set of facts and circumstances only means that when once the defendants decided that the suit land was not required for constructing the maternity ward that completed the purpose of Section 54-A of the Act that it was really no longer required for the real benefit for which it was acquired, namely, for construction of the maternity ward. At that moment only the defendants were bound to transfer the patta to the plaintiff. If the construction put by the learned Government Pleader upon Section 54-A of the Act is accepted this Court feels
that it is better that Section 54-A is neither repealed or given up as a part of the Act in question. Therefore, the plaintiff has established in this case that he was entitled to get the patta transferred to his name on the defendants no longer requiring the suit land for the public benefit, namely, the construction of the maternity ward. (Para 23)
13. Thus, apart from the Board Standing Order 90(32), Section 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F also directs reassignment of the land. What the petitioner therein sought was not to direct the authorities to withdraw from the acquision proceedings. His request was only for reassignment of the un-utilised land as he is entitled for the same under Section 54-A of the Act.
14. An argument was advanced by the learned Government Pleader that the question of re-assignment arises only when the land is an agricultural land or pasturage land. But whereas the land in question is situated in the heart of the city and it was never used as an agricultural land. To know whether the learned Government Pleader is correct in his submission on factual position, we directed him to produce the entire records pertaining to the land inquestion. Accordingly, they were produced before this Court. We perused the records. In the Pahani Patrika for the year1988-89 the nature of the acquired land is described as ‘Magani’ which means wet land raising two crops. The name of the occupant is shown as Sahik Basheeruddin and M. Raja Singh. When the petitioner made a request to the authorities concerned for issuance of Pahanis for the subsequent years, the Superintendent in the Office of the Mandal Revenue by a Memo No.D/139/92, dated 18-2-1993 expressed their inability to issue Pahanis as no ‘Zamabandi’ was taken up for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92.
15. From the above, it is clear that as on the date of initiation of acquisition proceedings the land in question was a wet land capable of raising two crops. Thus, it was an agricultural land. The other records maintained by the authorities also disclose the nature of the land in question as agricultural land. Even in the claim made by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer he mentioned the land as an agricultural land and under cultivation. The petitioner had to claim compensation on square yard basis in view of the potentiality of the acquired land that too it was acquired in small extents. Since the acquired land was originally an agricultural land and though a part of it was utilised by the acquiring body, the remaining left over land shall be treated as an un-utilised land. Thus it attracts Section 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F.
16. The new idea introduced by the authorities to make use of the un-utilised land for construction of Mandal Revenue Office complex is only an after-thought and it is made with a view to circumvent the order passed by this Court in WP No.14062 of 1997. Even if there is a need to construct the MRO Office, the un-utilised land in question is not at all sufficient as it is a small strip that too abutting the main road with 20 feet width where even a small passage cannot be carved, let alone the main building. Section 54-A contemplates that when an agricultural land is acquired and it is no longer required, its patta shall be made in the name of the person from whom it was acquired, namely, its occupant. He need not even make an application seeking assignment of such land. On the other hand, a duty is cast upon the authorities concerned to assign the land or grant patta in favour of the person from whom it was acquired. The District Collector should not have placed reliance on the reports of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition prepared
subsequently to deny the petitioner’s legitimate rights. He should not have also placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and others v. M.Bhaskaran PHlai and another, (supra) as the same on facts has no application to the case of the petitioner herein as the case of the petitioner is governed by the Board Standing Order 90(32) and also Section 54-A of Andhra Pradesh (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. The order of the District Collector is contrary to Board Standing Order No.90(32), Section 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317-F and its interpretation and effect by the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of S.M. Yahya Quadri v. District Collector, (supra). The authorities should have taken note of the prepardness of the petitioner to return the compensation amount with interest at 12% p.a. thereon in respect of the un-utilised land, that too when the un-utilised land is a small bit and not useful for construction of any office complex. On the other hand, the same can be better made use of by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of assignment sought by him which was rightly granted by the learned single Judge. In our view, the order of the learned single Judge is a just one and it does not warrant interference of this Court. The writ appeal fails, and it is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.