Vested acquired land cannot be reconveyed to the original owner merely because it remains unused.

Land acquired for a public purpose vests absolutely in the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, free from encumbrances, and cannot be returned to the original owner merely because it remains unused. Once possession is taken, the Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48, though the land may be used for another public purpose. The Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) did not create an enforceable right to re-assignment, and Section 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act applied only where the competent authority had made the requisite decision to dispose of no-longer-required agricultural land. No direct reconveyance could be claimed on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and vested in the Government could be re-assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner merely because part of it remained unused, and whether the Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and Section 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act supported such re-assignment.

Analysis: Land acquired for a public purpose vests absolutely in the Government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, free from all encumbrances. Once possession has been taken, the Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48, and the acquired land cannot be returned to the erstwhile owner merely because it remains unutilised. The unused land may be put to another public purpose, but no enforceable right arises in favour of the original owner to demand restitution or reconveyance. The Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) did not confer a statutory right to re-assignment, and in any event it contemplated further administrative steps before any disposal. Section 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act applied only where agricultural land acquired for public benefit is no longer required and the competent authority has taken the relevant decision; it did not justify direct reconveyance on the facts.

Conclusion: The claim for re-assignment or reconveyance of the unused acquired land was not maintainable, and the impugned orders directing return of the land could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the orders in favour of the original owners were set aside, with the writ petition and suit dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Land acquired for a public purpose and vested in the State cannot be re-conveyed to the original owner merely because it remains unused, unless a valid statutory basis authorises such disposal and the competent authority has taken the requisite decision.

---