( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions involve same question of law and the facts are also the same. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose all of them by this common order. Accordingly, common order shall dispose of all these ten writ petitions. The facts are in a very narrow compass and indeed, but for giving a clarification wherever necessary, the respondents have not disputed the facts.

( 2 ) THE necessary facts are as follows. The land owned by the petitioners was acquired under the provisions of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 ( the Act for brevity) as amended by the Nagarjunasagar Project (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1960. Awards were duly passed and the amount was disbursed to the owners. In some cases, the owners sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and after the award of the Civil Court, enhanced compensation was also paid. In all the cases, awards were passed long ago, that is to say, about 20-25 years ago. The particulars are as follows:

Si. No

W. P. No.

Particulars of the land

Date of Award

1.

4693 of 1994

Ac. 1. 13 1/4 gts. in Sy. No. 275, Kanapuram Haveli

4-3-1969

2.

18156 of 1994

Ac. 0. 20 gts. in Sy. No. 111/2 (111/a), Somavaram

31-3-1978

3.

21539 of 1994

Ac. 0. 19 gts. in Sy. No. 503, Mallemadugu Ac. 9. 25 gts. in Sy. No. 504, Mallemadugu

11-3-1970

4.

8741 of 1995

Ac. 1. 13 1/2 gts. in Sy. No. 275, Kanapuram Haveli

4-3-1969

5.

15558 of 1996

Ac. 8. 31 gts. in Sy. No. 98, Tekulapalli

17-10-1970

6.

21792 of 1996

Ac. 0. 13 gts. in Sy. No. 275, Kanapuram Haveli

4-3-1969

7.

21935 of 1996

Ac. 8. 29 gts. in Sy. No. 872, Miryalaguda

26-2-1958

8.

21936 of 1996

Ac. 4. 01 gts. in Sy. No. 871, Miryalaguda

26-2-1958

9.

21937 of 1996

Ac. 2. 31 gts. in Sy. No. 883, Miryalaguda

26-2-1958

10.

22383 of 1996

Ac. 7. 30 gts. in Sy. No. 96, Burhanpuram

4-3-1969

( 3 ) IN W. P. Nos. 21935,21936 and 21937 of 1996, the petitioners approached the District collector requesting the re-convey the unutilised surplus land from out of the land acquired from them. Their request was rejected on 7-8-1996. In all other cases, however, the petitioners did not approach the authorities for reconveying the land. However, as there is a dispute as to whether the petitioners approached the authorities for re-conveying the land or not, for the sake of convenience, we may proceed on the premise that all the petitioners initially approached the authorities seeking reconveyance of the surplus unutilised land which was initially acquired for the purpose of Nagarjuna Sagar Project (NSP ).

( 4 ) AS the lands of the petitioners acquired for NSP were allegedly not utilised, as stated above, the petitioners approached the authorities for re-conveying the lands. In the meanwhile, some other landowners approached this Court by filing various writ petitions and this Court, it is stated, directed the authorities to re-convey the land to the owners, as the same was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. At that stage, all the petitioners approached this Court praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re- convey the land to each of the petitioners. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary to Government, irrigation and CAD Department and the concerned District Collector are added as necessary parties. The petitioners alleged that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not re-conveying the land in accordance with the Memo. No. 49038/ nsp. I (2)91-5, dated 10-3-1993 is arbitrary and contrary to the orders of the government.

( 5 ) THE respondents filed a counter and an additional counter. The sum and substance of the counter-affidavits is that when once the land acquired vests with the government, it is for the Government to use the excess surplus land and the owners have no claim over the land. The land acquired for the NSP was totally utilised and there is no vacant land and hence the question of re-conveyance does not arise. It is stated that in the present cases, the gover