GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR. versus SYED AKBAR

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 19-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
SYED AKBAR 
NOVEMBER 19, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SR1KR1SHNA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
S.16-Acquisition of land for a specific public purpose-Land remaining 
unutilized-Reassignment of to original owner-Held, land acquired vests 
in Government-Land acquired for a public purpose can be utilized for 
any other public purpose and cannot be re-assigned or reconveyed to 
original owner merely on the basis of an executive order-Standing Order 
No. 90(32) of A.P. Board of Revenue. 
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act : 
S. 54-A-Agricultural land acquired under Land Acquisition Act-
Remaining unutilized-Reassignment of to original owner-Held, the section 
can be attracted only if land acquired for public benefit is no longer 
E required not necessarily for the specific purpose for which it was acquired; 
and a decision to that effect is made by competent authority-Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894-S. l 6. 
Certain lands of the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 6546 of 1999 
F were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. During the pendency 
· of the reference made at the instance of the respondent for enhancement 
of the compensation, he came to know that a part of the land acquired 
was lying unutilised. He sought re-assignment of the unutilized land 
relying on Standing Order No. 90(32) of the A.P. Board of Revenue. His 
claim was rejected by the authorities. But, his writ petition was allowed 
G by the Single Judge. The State Government filed appeal before the 
Division Bench of the High Court. Meanwhile State Government amended 
para 32 of the Board's Standing Order No. 96 providing that the untilised 
acquired land could be utilized for any other public purposes. However, 
the Division Bench dismissed the appeal holding that in view of Board's 
H Standing Order No. 90(32) and s. 54-A of the A.P. (Telangana Area) 
208 
GOVT. OF A.P. v. SYED AKBAR 
209 
Land kevenue Act, the respondent was entitled to re-assignment of the A 
unutilised land. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the present appeal. 
A building belonging to respondent No. 1 in CA No. 4110 of 2000 
was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and compensation 
was paid. The scheme for which the building was acquired, was abandoned B 
and the building was leased out to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 
1 sought reconveyance of the building. His claim was rejected. He filed 
a suit, relying on Board's Standing Order No. 90(32). The suit was 
decreed. The State Government being unsuccessful in the first appeal 
as also in the second appeal, filed the present appeal. 
On the questions: whether direction could be given to the State 
authorities to re-assign unused land to the original owner which was 
c 
duly acquired by the authorities and regarding which the acquisitiop 
proceedings had become final except that the reference was pending 
before the Reference Court only with regard to enhancement of D 
com(>fnsation and whether the Board's Standing Order No. 90(32) and 
Section 54-A of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act can be 
applied for reassignment of the unused land in favour of the original 
owner. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD : 1. From the position of law made clear in the decisions of 
this Court, it follows that (1) under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition 
Act 1894, the land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free all 
encumbrances; (2) the land acquired for a public purpose could be F 
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 ap 
executive order. [218-D-E] 
State of Kera/a and Ors. v. M Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., [1997) 5 SCC G 
432; Chandraguada Ramgonda Patil & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & 
Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 405 and Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant 
Singh & Ors., [2003) 1 SCC 35, relied on. 
State of Kera/a and Ors. v. M Bhaskaran Pillai and Anr., [1997) 5 H 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A sec 42 and Sri Gu/am Mustafa and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 
AIR (1977) SC 448, referred to. 
2.1. It has not been shown that Standing Order No. 90(32) of the A.P. 
Board of Revenue bears any statutory force. Even otherwise, as per para 
B 32 of the said Order, the land acquired, no longer required for the public 
purpose for which it was acqu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.