IMPORTANT POINT
Once possession of the acquired land is taken, the government cannot ordinarily re-convey it to the original owner. The decision of re-conveyance is required to be made by the competent authority and mere correspondence among officials cannot be a ground for the plaintiffs to contend that the Government cannot rescind from its decision to re-convey the suit land in their favor.

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.3 of 1999, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet are the appellants challenging the judgment dtd. 10/7/2002. By the impugned judgment, the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking recovery of possession of suit land in terms of Sec. 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. One Ambati Gopaiah, father of the plaintiffs, was the absolute owner and possessor of the lands in Sy. Nos. 98, 99, 100 and 122, totally admeasuring to an extent of Ac.11-91 cents, situated at Ganapavaram Village of Munagala Mandal of Nalgonda District. The said land was acquired by the Government by initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1963 for the purpose of excavation of N.S.P. left canal. However, out of the said land, an extent of Ac.4.00 cents of land was kept vacant and unutilized by the defendants for the last 30 years as it was not required for the purpose for which it was acquired. Hence, the father of the plaintiffs made several representations to the defendant authorities seeking to re-convey the unutilized vacant land by collecting the compensation amount paid to him. Said Gopaiah died in the year 1994 leaving the plaintiffs as his successors. Considering the request of the father of the plaintiffs, dtd. 20/6/1994, the then Deputy Executive Engineer, defendant No. 7, after making enquiry into the matter, submitted his report on 9/11/1995 to the Executive Engineer, defendant No. 6, to the effect that out of the acquired land, only an extent of Ac.2.48 cents of land in Sy. No. 122/2 is available (suit schedule land). In turn, defendant No. 6 addressed a letter, dtd. 18/11/1995 to the Superintending Engineer, defendant No. 5, who in turn, through his letter dtd. 3/2/1996 requested the Chief Engineer, defendant No. 4, seeking permission for restoring the suit land in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. As a result, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, defendant No. 3, addressed a letter to the Secretary (Irrigation and Command Area Development), defendant No. 1, seeking permission to restore the land in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. While the matter stood thus, the father of the plaintiffs died leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. At this stage, the plaintiffs approached the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing W.P. No. 3913 of 1996 seeking a direction to the Government authorities, defendants, to reassign the land in terms of Sec. 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act which came to be disposed of on 19/4/1996 with a direction to the authorities to redress the grievance of the plaintiffs within a period of two months. In compliance thereof, though the plaintiffs were required to attend the office of defendant No. 7 on 16/8/1996 for fixing the date for site verification in order to re-convey the suit land, as there was no progress in the matter, the plaintiffs, after filing several representations, filed Contempt Case No. 661 of 1997. Pending the Contempt Case, the authorities issued the proceedings in Memo No. E3/5522/97, dtd. 28/8/1997 rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit land cannot be re-conveyed as it was required for buildings purpose and other public purposes. On the basis of the said letter, the Contempt Case came to be closed on 7/11/1997. According to the plaintiffs, they are the small farmers; that they are living on agriculture; that the Government having decided to re-convey the suit land in their favour in terms of Sec. 54-A of the Land Revenue Act, is not passing any final orders. Hence, the suit.

4. Contesting the suit, defendant No. 6 filed a written statement on his behalf and also on behalf of other defendants contending that there are no inconsistent decisions among the defendants as to the reconveyance of suit land in fa