The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 17.05.2013 vide Annexure-G and the order dated 24.07.2013 vide Annexure-H, both passed by the respondent No.4.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The father of the petitioner was the owner of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.86/2 measuring 5 acres. The said land was acquired for the purpose of burial ground. It is stated that the said land is not being used for the purpose for which it has been acquired. The local authorities have handed over the acquired land to others for cultivation. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents-Authorities. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.61075/2012. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 11.12.2012 directing respondent No.4 to consider petitioners representation dated 05.01.2011, in accordance with law. Respondent No.4 considering the representation made by the petitioner, has issued the impugned endorsements. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have acquired the land for the purpose of burial ground, but the respondents are not using the acquired land for the said purpose. Hence the petitioner has submitted a representation stating that the petitioner is ready to repay the compensation amount received by him and sought for re-conveyance. The respondent has issued the impugned endorsements without considering the contentions of the petitioner. Hence he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the land of the petitioner has been acquired for the purpose of burial ground and the said land is being used for the same purpose. He further submits that the impugned endorsements issued by the respondent No.4 are in accordance with law.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of burial ground. The grievance of the petitioner is that the acquired land is being used for different purpose and not for the purpose for which it was acquired. Hence on the said ground, the petitioner claims that the acquired land is to be re-conveyed. Further, the petitioner once having accepted the compensation, has no right to claim for re-conveyance on the ground that the property which has been acquired, is not used for the said purpose. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of acquisition of land in question and possession of the lands has already been taken by the respondents.
8. In view of the above facts, I would like to place reliance on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ANOTHER VS. SYED AKBAR1 wherein it has been held as under:
14. From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decision 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 reassigned or reconveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order.
9. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed any material before the Court to show that the respondents are not using the acquired land for the
1 (2005) 1 SCC 558 purpose for which it has been acquired. Respondent No.4, after considering the material on record, has rightly issued the impugned endorsements. Hence I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned endorsements. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE
Comments