ORDER : C.Praveen Kumar, J. 1. The action of the 1st respondent in trying to take away the property of the 2nd respondent admeasuring Ac.3.23 cents situated at Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District and trying to use the same for issuance of house site pattas, is subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of this Public Interest Litigation, filed by Subhiksha Social Service Society, show that the 2nd respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) purchased Ac.5.53 cents of land in Sy.No.83/1 of Pedanandipadu Village, Guntur District in the year 1985, for construction of bus stand and a depot. Later on, a bus stand was constructed in land admeasuring Ac.2.30 cents of land and the remaining extent is lying vacant from the date of its purchase. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner-society made an application to 2nd and 3rd respondents for usage of the said land, for raising bio diesel plants and fodder plants. The 3rd respondent by his letter, dated 27.10.2009, addressed to the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Guntur, stated that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered as they intend to use it for other activities. As the land was not put to use for considerable period of time, the petitioner-society made another application for allotment of the said land to raise bio-diesel plants, but, there was no reply from the 2nd respondent. While matters stood thus, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is trying to take over the vacant land of the 2nd respondent, for allotment of house sites to landless poor persons under “Pedalandariki Illu Scheme”. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed challenging the same. 3. The main contention of Ms. Pranathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that, land which is meant for construction of bus depot or for any other purpose, which is beneficial to the public at large, cannot be acquired for house site pattas. According to her, though the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 4th respondent i.e., District Collector, Guntur, requesting him to drop the proposal of taking over the said land for issuance of house site pattas, the revenue officials are leveling the land and taking steps for distributing the land to landless poor persons. According to her, though the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 4th respondent i.e., District Collector, Guntur, requesting him to drop the proposal of taking over the said land for issuance of house site pattas, the revenue officials are leveling the land and taking steps for distributing the land to landless poor persons. It is further urged by her that even the petitioner made a representation dated 24.02.2020, requesting the 4th respondent not to take over the land of the 2nd respondent, as the residents of Pedanandipadu Village would be put to loss in getting employment opportunities, but there was no response to the same. 4. A common counter came to be filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. In paragraph-3 of the counter it has been specifically stated that APSRTC has acquired land in the year 1988 vide Award No.6 of 1988 dated 04.04.2018 and an amount of Rs.1,43,421/-was paid as compensation. After construction of a bus stand, the remaining portion of the land was kept vacant for construction of a garage and other developmental works. The Tahsildar was also informed about the manner in which the property came to be acquired by the APRTC. The averments in the counter also show that APSRTC is trying to construct a bus depot with electrical buses, to cater to the needs of commuters of surrounding towns under FAME-II Scheme of Central Government, to reduce green house gases emitted by diesel/fossil fuels. The Regional Manager has addressed a letter to the District Collector requesting him to drop the proposal as the said land is essential for the construction of bus depot to cater to the needs of commuters of the surrounding towns. Similar such letter was addressed by the Executive Director (A), APSRTC House, Vijayawada, requesting the District Collector to drop the proposal of taking over the above site. It is further stated that mere merging of the employees of the APSRTC into the Government service does not automatically amount to transfer of the properties belonging to the Corporation to the Government, since APSRTC still exists. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 4 filed their counter disputing the averments made in the affidavits filed by the petitioner and also the averments in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 4 filed their counter disputing the averments made in the affidavits filed by the petitioner and also the averments in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. From a perusal of the averments made in the counter filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is very clear that the said land, though not used, but still required for constructing a depot. Though the Government Pleader tried to contend that the land was assigned to APSRTC by the State Government, but, the material on record clearly discloses that the same was acquired by them, which is evident from the Award passed. As observed earlier, the entire extent of acquired land was not put to use and only a part of the land was used for construction of R.T.C. bus stand. Merely because the remaining portion of the land acquired by the APSRTC was not put to use, it cannot be said that the said land is of no use to APSRTC. Usage of the entire land for a particular purpose may not be known on the date when it was acquired, but, definitely, more than the requirement is normally acquired, keeping in view the future needs. Having regard to the growth, which is noticed over a period of time, the State Road Transport Corporation felt that the remaining land has to be used for a particular purpose. It could be for the expansion of the existing bus station or for constructing a commercial complex so as to generate income for the corporation. Having a commercial complex in and around bus station is not a strange phenomenon. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that number of shops, eating kiosks/entertaining centers have come in many a bus stations/railway stations. Therefore, the act of the Government in trying to take over the land for the purpose of allotment of house sites to landless poor persons under “Pedalandariki Illu Scheme”, in our view, cannot be countenanced. Hence, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the land can be taken by the Government for the purpose of a scheme as it is not put to use, though many years have elapsed from the date of its acquisition/assignment, cannot be accepted. 7. Hence, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the land can be taken by the Government for the purpose of a scheme as it is not put to use, though many years have elapsed from the date of its acquisition/assignment, cannot be accepted. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, desisting the Respondent No.1 from taking over the land from the 2nd respondent for allotment of house sites to landless poor persons under “Pedalandariki Illu Scheme”, or for any other purpose and the same shall vest with the Corporation for its use only. There shall be no orders as to costs.