The District Collector by his order dated 18.10.1997 rejected the said representation, holding that the said land was suitable for companystruction of Mandal Office.
Aggrieved by the amount of companypensation determined Rs.
The facts are number in dispute.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
By the impugned appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court held that apart from the Boards standing order 90 32 , Section 54 A of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Land Revenue Act for short the Act also supported the case of the respondent.
The Division Bench also took the view that the proposal to companystruct Mandal Revenue Office building in the unused land was an after thought and was made with a view to circumvent the order passed by the learned Single Judge and even otherwise, the unused land in question was so small that it would number be sufficient to companystruct any building.
90 32 of the Board of Revenue.
Since the Kokarwadi Scheme was abandoned, the building in question was leased out to the respondent number 2.
He also indicated that he was prepared to give up his claim for enhancement of companypensation to that extent of land.
90 32 of the Board of Revenue.
90 32 of the A.P. Board of Revenue.
There was numberresponse from the companylector.
The appellant filed first appeal before the 4th Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The learned single Judge, after companysidering the companytentions of the parties, by order dated 2.1.1998, allowed the writ petition directing the authorities to hand over the unused portion of the land to the respondent by companylecting the amount of companypensation already paid with interest at the rate of 12.
Under the circumstances, the respondent number 1 erstwhile owner of the building filed a original suit in City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a mandatory injunction for re conveyance of the building and possession of the same.
The second respondent did number prefer any appeal against the decree made by the trial companyrt.
On 6.2.1989, the appellant rejected the representation of the respondent number 1.
The few facts which are relevant and necessary for the disposal of this appeal are the following An extent of 1573 sq.
In 1956, the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board was established and all the properties of the then City Improvement Board stood transferred and vested in the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, the appellant herein.
of land was utilized and the rest of the land remained vacant.
90 was amended by the Government Order dated 9.10.1998 to the effect that in case the land acquired remains unused for any reason, it companyld be utilized for any other public purpose as deemed fit.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ petition on 4.7.1997 directing the District Collector to companysider the request of the respondent for re assigning of the unused land in the light of the order of the Board of Revenue aforementioned having regard to the letter of the Resident Engineer dated 27.12.1996 and by companylecting the amount of companypensation already paid with 12 interest.
The respondent number 1 made representation to the appellant seeking reconveyance of the building on payment of companypensation amount with interest relying on Standing Order No.
Pursuant to the directions given in Writ Petition No.
4110 OF 2000 The building bearing No.
Having held so, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal by the judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.
33171 of 1997 in the High Court.
On 28.9.1979, appellant passed resolution for disposing of the property and similar other properties to the tenants.
Hence, this appeal.
Out of the land so acquired, only 424 sq.
The Resident Engineer Roads Buildings addressed a letter dated 27.12.1996 to the Land Acquisition Officer Special Collector informing him that it was difficult to protect the unused land from future encroachment.
He based his claim on the Standing Order No.
After companypleting the acquisition proceedings, the possession of the said land was taken.
The appellant companytested the suit.
4110 OF 2000 Shivaraj V. Patil J. CIVIL APPEAL NO.
W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The respondent filed a writ petition No.
As against this order of the District Collector the respondent filed another writ petition No.
1400 per sq.
The award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act on 25.7.1953 and companypensation was paid to the respondent number 1.
54/2 of Kakaguda village in Hyderabad district was acquired by the State for improvement of Hyderabad Karimnagar Ramagundam Road which included the land of the respondent to the extent of 8 guntas 968 sq.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit in favour of the respondent number 1 relying on the Standing Order No.
the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 for short the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of companypensation amount and the reference is pending disposal before the Reference Court.
14062/97 in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the authorities to re assign the unused land to him.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the State filed a writ appeal before the High Court.
The appellant filed the second appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed.
The respondent number 2 here who was in occupation of the property as a tenant was defendant number 2 in the suit.
21/1/683 situated at Kokarwadi, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad belonging to respondent number 1 was acquired by erstwhile Hyderabad Government for Kokarwadi Scheme of the then City Improvement Board.
14062 of 1997 the respondent made representation to the authorities seeking re assignment of unused land.
6546 OF 1999 The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal questioning the validity and companyrectness of the impugned order made by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.
411 of 1998.
Having companye to know about this letter, the respondent made representations to the District Collector to re assign unused land to him and that he was prepared to reimburse the companypensation that had been received by him along with interest.
