Once the land is acquired, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances, and the change of land use is not a ground for invalidating the acquisition. Section 101 of the 2013 Act cannot be applied to an acquisition made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

Heard Mr. Vedula Venkatramana, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants; Mr.Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Office of learned Advocate General for Municipal Administration representing respondent Nos.1 and 6; learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation representing respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5; Mr.Y.Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority representing respondent No.3; Mr.G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent No.7; and Mr. Polkampally Pavan Kumar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 & 9.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition being W.P.No.976 of 2020 filed by the appellants as the writ petitioners.

3. Appellants had filed the related writ petition for a direction to the State to re-convey the lands to an extent of Acs.34 – 17 gts in Sy.Nos.1011/1 and 1011/2 situated at Kukatpally Revenue Village in Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District (subject land) in favour of the petitioners.

4. From the materials on record, it appears that the subject land was acquired by the State Government in the year 1966 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of allotment in favour of Indian Detonators Limited. Predecessors of the petitioners were the owners of the subject land which was acquired by the State. After acquisition, the land was kept vacant for a long time. It was alleged that Indian Detonators Limited has entered into a development agreement with Gulf Oil Corporation Limited (Respondent No.7), who inturn has entered into a further development agreement with Hinduja Estates Private Limited (Respondent No.8) on 30.07.2012 for real estate business.

5. According to the petitioners, the land was acquired for a public purpose i.e., for industrial use but now the acquired land is being used for commercial purpose. The purpose for which the land was acquired has been changed. Therefore, petitioners submitted representation dated 21.10.2019 before the GHMC authorities seeking survey and demarcation of the acquired land and thereafter to re-convey the subject land to the petitioners. This was followed by legal notice dated 18.11.2019 and reminder dated 28.12.2019. With the grievance that no corrective steps were taken on the basis of the above representations, related writ petition came to be filed.

6. While learned counsel for the appellants had contended before the learned Single Judge that the acquired land was being utilized for a purpose which was different from the public purpose for which the acquisition was made, learned Government Pleader for Revenue had submitted before the learned Single Judge that once a property is acquired, question of re-conveying the same does not arise.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, learned Single Judge passed the order dated 28.07.2022 taking the view that relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Disposing of the writ petition, liberty has been granted to the appellants to avail appropriate remedy if any.

8. Hence the appeal.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submit that on 28.09.2022, this Court had issued notice and directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the subject land. Once notice has been issued, State should file affidavit. Elaborating further, he submits that the purpose for which the land was acquired has to be maintained; it must be in the public interest. Ofcourse once acquired, the land can be utilized for B public interest instead of A public interest but it cannot be used for a private cause like constructing commercial complexes or constructing villas.

His further submission is that though the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 103 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Reset