2004 (11) TMI 590 - SC - Indian Laws

Land Acquisition Final: Govt Retains Ownership, No Re-assignment to Original Owners Allowed.

Govt. of A.P. Versus Syed Akbar

The SC set aside the HC's order, dismissing the respondent's writ petition. The appeal was allowed, affirming that once land is acquired and vested in the ... Re-assignment of unused acquired land - Applicability of Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and Section 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act - 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 - HELD THAT:- 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, 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 authorities to decide about the same. The High Court, in our view, was not right in saying that the proposal to construct the Mandal Revenue Office in the unused land acquired was an after-thought. No material was placed on record to attribute any mala fides on the part of the authorities or to support the case that the proposal to build a Mandal Revenue Office was an after- 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. 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 no order as to costs. Issues Involved:1. Re-assignment of unused acquired land.2. Applicability of Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and Section 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act.3. Validity of the High Court's direction to re-assign unused land.Summary:Issue 1: Re-assignment of Unused Acquired LandThe Supreme Court addressed whether the appellants could be directed to re-assign unused land to the respondent, which was acquired for public purposes and vested in the government. The Court held that once land is acquired and vested in the government u/s 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it cannot be re-conveyed to the original owner. The Court cited precedents, including State of Kerala vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, which established that unused acquired land could be used for any other public purpose but not re-assigned to the original owner.Issue 2: Applicability of Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and Section 54-A of the ActThe Court examined the applicability of Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and Section 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. It was noted that the Standing Order lacked statutory force and could not override the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The amendment to para 32 of the Standing Order, which allowed the use of acquired land for any other public purpose, was also highlighted. Section 54-A was interpreted to apply only when agricultural land acquired for public benefit is no longer required, which was not the case here.Issue 3: Validity of the High Court's DirectionThe Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in directing the re-assignment of the unused land to the respondent. The High Court's observation that the proposal to construct a Mandal Revenue Office was an after-thought was not supported by any material evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that decisions regarding the sufficiency of land for public purposes should be made by competent authorities, not the judiciary.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent. The appeal was allowed, reinforcing that acquired land vested in the government cannot be re-assigned to the original owner based on executive orders or non-statutory standing orders. The decision in Civil Appeal No. 4110 of 2000 followed the same reasoning, dismissing the suit for re-conveyance of the building and possession.