TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Land Acquisition Final: Govt Retains Ownership, No Re-assignment to Original Owners Allowed.</h1> <h3>Govt. of A.P. Versus Syed Akbar</h3> Govt. of A.P. Versus Syed Akbar - 2005 AIR 492, 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 208, 2005 (1) SCC 558, 2004 (10) JT 569, 2004 (9) SCALE 553 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
