2004 Supreme(SC) 1441

2004(8) Supreme 621
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Govt. of A.P. and Anr. -Appellants
versus
Syed Akbar -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6546 of 1999
With
C.A.No. 4110 of 2000
Decided on 19-11-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in C.A.No : 6546/99 : Manoj Saxena, Mohanprasad Meharia and S.K. Mittra, Advocates.
For the Appellant in C.A.No. 4110/2000 : Guntur Prabhakar and Ms. T. Anamika, Advocates.
For the Respondent in C.A.No. 6546/99 : R.N. Keshwani, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1 in C.A.No. 4110/2000 : Subodh Markandaya, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Chitra Markandaya, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2 in C.A.No. 4110/2000 : Sanjay Parikh and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances and the unused land cannot be re-assigned or reconveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 16, 18 and 48-Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act-Section 54A-Order to reconvey unutilized land which is part of acquired land-Validity challenged-Valid acquisition of land-Possession of land had been taken-Out of the land acquired, only 424 sq. yds. of land was utilized and rest of the land remained vacant-Resident Engineer addressed a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer informing him that it was difficult to protect the unused land from future encroachment-Respondent made representations to the District Collector to re-assign unused land to him-Whether direction could be given to appellants to reassign unused land to respondent which was duly acquired-(No)-Even u/s 48 of the Act, the Government could not withdraw from acquisition or to reconvey the said land to respondent as possession of land had already been taken-Land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances.

       Held : 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 Acquisition Act, Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. In the instant case, even under Section 48, the Government could not withdraw from acquisition or to re-convey the said land to the respondent as the possession of the land had already been taken. The position of law is well settled. (Para 9)

       From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions, it follows that (1) 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 free from all encumbrances cannot be re-assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order. (Para 13)

       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. (Para 14)

       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 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. 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 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 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. (Para 15)