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. 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 favour of the plaintiffs; that the suit land is required for other public purpose by the Government; that the Government by orders dtd. 28/11/1996 made it clear that it is not possible to reconvey the suit land in favour of the erstwhile land owners in any manner. 5. 28/11/1996 made it clear that it is not possible to reconvey the suit land in favour of the erstwhile land owners in any manner. 5. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial court framed the following issues for trial: a) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for redelivery of vacant possession of the suit land from the defendants as prayed for? b) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 was examined as P.W.1 apart from examining an independent witness as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of defendants, one P.V.S.S. Ranga Rao was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked on their behalf. 7. The trial Court placing reliance on the decision of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Koppula Narsaiah and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2000(6) ALD 299 . dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The relevant portions at para Nos. 11 and 12 read as under:- "11. In exercise of powers under Sec. 172 of the Telangana Act, the Government made Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue, dtd. 25/7/1958 known as Assignment Rules. Rules II, III and IV deal with the permission for occupation of the land at the disposal of the Government. The conspectus of these Rules is that the land at the disposal of the Government should be assigned only to landless persons who directly engage themselves in cultivation including Harijans, ex-toddy tappers, backward communities and weavers. In 1324-Fasli, Telangana Act was amended inserting Sec. 54-A by Act III of 1324-Fasli, which reads as under: 54-A . Procedure in respect of land acquired for purpose of public and no more required:- When agricultural or pasturage land acquired for public benefit is no longer required the patta thereof shall be made in the name of the person or his successor from whom, such land was acquired provided he consents to refund the compensation originally paid to him. If such person or his successor does not take the land, it may be given on patta under Sec. 54.' 12. As already mentioned, after the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 there has been a spurt of litigation relating to re-conveyance of acquired land. Ultimately, in various cases, the Supreme Court held that there is no right to claim re-conveyance of the acquired land. As already mentioned, after the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 there has been a spurt of litigation relating to re-conveyance of acquired land. Ultimately, in various cases, the Supreme Court held that there is no right to claim re-conveyance of the acquired land. In State of Kerala v. M.Bhaskaran Pillai, C.Padma v. Deputy Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, State of Punjab v. Sadhu Ram, and Chandragauda Ramagonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of re-conveyance." 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Perused the material available on record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the Government had acquired the land belonged to the father of the appellants to an extent of Ac.11-91 cents, situated at Ganapavaram Village of Munagala Mandal of Nalgonda District, by initiating the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it had utilized only Ac.8.00 cents, that the project was completed long back, that Ac.4.00 cents was kept vacant for the last 30 years, that when the father of appellants made application to the respondent authorities on 20/6/1994 for re-conveyance of unutilized land expressing his willingness to payback the corresponding compensation received from the Government, initially, though the respondent authorities by letter dtd. 9/11/1995 recommended to the Government for re-conveyance of unutilized suit land i.e., to an extent of Ac.2.48 cents, subsequently, as an afterthought, issued the memo dtd. 20/9/1997 informing the plaintiffs that the suit land is required for building purpose and any other public purpose and the same cannot be re-conveyed. It is contended that when once the Government, after detailed enquiry, had taken a decision to re-convey the unutilized suit land in favour of the plaintiffs, they are entitled to for re-conveyance of the same. The further contention of the learned counsel is that since the suit land is agricultural land, by operation of Sec. 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, the respondent authorities are bound to restore/re-convey the suit land to the plaintiffs as the purpose for which it was acquired was not fulfilled. The further contention of the learned counsel is that since the suit land is agricultural land, by operation of Sec. 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, the respondent authorities are bound to restore/re-convey the suit land to the plaintiffs as the purpose for which it was acquired was not fulfilled. It is contended that admittedly the acquired suit land is an agricultural land acquired for the public benefit, and when once such a piece of land acquired for the public benefit is no longer required, the patta thereof shall be made in the name of the person from whom such land was acquired. In this regard, reliance is placed on Syed Mohammad Yahya Quadri (died) and Ors. v. District Collector, Nalgonda and Anr., 1996 (3) ALD 781 . Placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar, 1999 (5) ALD 391 (DB). the learned counsel contends that once a part of the land acquired found not required by the acquiring body, such part of the land has to be assigned to the original owner of the land or his/her legal heir, if the assignee is prepared to return back the compensation paid with interest at 12% per annum. 10. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, referring to the correspondence of the respondent authorities, submits that all the letters/communications/memos in relation to the re-conveyance of the suit land, on which the appellants are relying on, were reconsidered and final decision was communicated to the appellants vide Exs.B.1, Letter Memo No. 49668/NSP(3)/96-2, dtd. 28/11/1996; B.2, Wireless Message, dtd. 18/9/1997; B.3, Copy of letter No. DB/D2/SP. 3913/96/640, dtd. 19/9/1997; B.4,Copy of Letter No. DB/D8/LA/SP.No.3913/96/1471, dtd. 22/9/1997; B.5, Copy of Memo No. E3/6522/96, dtd. 28/9/1997; B.6, Copy of Letter No. OS.4/AS.1/F.5307/79, dtd. 18/10/1997; B.7, Copy of G.O.Rt.No. 120, dtd. 17/2/1999 and B.8, Letter No. DB/D8/MIE(M)/146, dtd. 3/2/1996, holding that it is not possible to re-convey the suit land as it is essential for departmental use, based on which, the Contempt Case was also closed by this Court vide C.C. No. 661 of 1997 dtd. 7/11/1997. 18/10/1997; B.7, Copy of G.O.Rt.No. 120, dtd. 17/2/1999 and B.8, Letter No. DB/D8/MIE(M)/146, dtd. 3/2/1996, holding that it is not possible to re-convey the suit land as it is essential for departmental use, based on which, the Contempt Case was also closed by this Court vide C.C. No. 661 of 1997 dtd. 7/11/1997. As regards the provisions of Sec. 54-A of the Land Revenue Act, it is contended that when the suit land was acquired in the year 1964 for public purpose, the same cannot be continued to be agricultural and pasture lands and therefore, the suit land shall be deemed to have lost its character of being agricultural or pasture land and therefore, Sec. 54-A of the Act is not applicable to the suit land. In this regard, the learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Koppula Narasaiah and another (supra). It is further contended that the decision in Syed Akbar (supra) is no more a good law as the same was set aside by the Apex Court when the Special Leave Petition (Civil Appeal No. 6546 of 1999, dtd. 19/11/2004) was preferred by the Government thereagainst. 11. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "whether the plaintiffs are entitled for re-conveyance of the suit land by virtue of provisions of Sec. 54-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act?" 12. Admittedly, the suit land, along with other extent of lands, was acquired by the Government from the father of the plaintiffs by initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of excavation of N.S.P. left canal by the then Government, defendants, by initiating the proceedings under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Amended N.S.P. Land Acquisition Act in the year 1963. In terms of the Award passed on 3/4/1963, the father of the plaintiffs received the compensation amount. It is only in the year 1994 i.e., on 29/6/1994, after lapse of 30 years, the plaintiffs' father stated to have made a representation to the District Collector requesting for re-conveyance of the suit land. Considering the request of the father of the plaintiffs, there was some correspondence among the respondent officials for restoring the land in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. Considering the request of the father of the plaintiffs, there was some correspondence among the respondent officials for restoring the land in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. As no favourable orders were passed, the plaintiffs filed W.P. No. 3913 of 1996 which was 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. Ultimately, vide memo No. 49668/NSP(3)/96-2, dtd. 28/11/1996 (Ex.B.1), the Government have passed orders not to re-convey the suit land to the original owner in any manner. The plaintiffs, after submitting several representations, filed Contempt Case No. 661 of 1997. Pending the Contempt Case, the authorities issued proceedings in Memo No. E3/5522/97, dtd. 28/8/1997 rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit land is required for building purpose and other public purpose. In view of the said stand of the Government, the Contempt Case came to be closed on 7/11/1997. Such being the case, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs that the respondent authorities having come to the decision that the suit land be re-conveyed to the plaintiffs and having sought permission of the Government vide letter No. OT4/AE/1/ F5307/79, cannot subsequently rescind from its decision and take a stand that the suit land is required for buildings construction and other public purpose, which is only an afterthought, cannot be accepted. For, all the letters which are relied on by the plaintiffs are in the nature of internal correspondence among the officials but not a conclusive decision so as to contend that a decision was taken by the respondents to re-convey the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. It is only on 28/11/1996, by way of Memo No. 49668/NSP(3)/96-2, the Government have taken a conclusive decision not to re-convey the suit land to the plaintiffs, basing on which, the defendant No. 2 issued Memo No. E3/652296, dtd. 20/9/1997 clearly informing the plaintiffs that the suit land is required for building purpose and other public purpose. Such being the case, the question of application of provisions of Sec. 54-A of the Act does not arise. 13. In Syed Mohammad Yahya Quadri (died) and Ors. 20/9/1997 clearly informing the plaintiffs that the suit land is required for building purpose and other public purpose. Such being the case, the question of application of provisions of Sec. 54-A of the Act does not arise. 13. In Syed Mohammad Yahya Quadri (died) and Ors. (supra), though the learned Single Judge of composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the unutilized agricultural acquired land shall be re-assigned to the original owner as per Sec. 54-A of the Act, in a subsequent decision, another learned Single Judge in Koppula Narasaiah and another (supra), referring latest decisions of the Apex Court, held at para No. 23 as under:- "23. S.M. Yahya Quadri case (supra) arose out of a second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC. The question there was whether the property, which was acquired, is required to be re-conveyed by the District Collector. The learned single Judge adverted to Sec. 54-A of the Telangana Act and considered the scope of the expression 'no longer required' for public benefit used in Sec. 54-A. The learned Judge held that the expression 'no longer required' can only mean that when once the public benefit for which the land has to transfer the patta to the person from whom it was acquired. Therefore, the crucial test for the purpose of Sec. 54-A is whether the public purpose for which the land was acquired is ceased or not. The fulfilment of this depends on various circumstances depending on the public purpose for which the land is acquired. For instance, if the land is acquired for construction of a school building, after completion of the school building it cannot be said that public purpose has ceased. The land may have been acquired for the school building keeping in view the future requirements as well as for providing a playground or a park etc. Therefore, as long as the school is continued it can never be said that public purpose has ceased. Likewise, if the land is acquired for irrigation canal, the public purpose is perpetual as there is no element of public purpose coming to an end after digging a canal. Logically, the same applies in respect of the land acquired for a multipurpose river project. The Nagarjunasagar Project is intended to be permanent and perpetual. Likewise, if the land is acquired for irrigation canal, the public purpose is perpetual as there is no element of public purpose coming to an end after digging a canal. Logically, the same applies in respect of the land acquired for a multipurpose river project. The Nagarjunasagar Project is intended to be permanent and perpetual. Therefore, it can never be said that after completion of the main dam, its irrigation system, construction of colonies, offices etc., public purpose has ceased. Applying the test in Syed Yahya Quadri's case (supra) it can never be said that after a period of 30 years, the public purpose, to wit, construction of Nagarjunasagar Project, has ceased. Putting the land to use or not to use for the present or in future cannot be a relevant consideration for the purpose of Sec. 54-A of the Telangana Act." 14. A perusal of Sec. 54 of the Telangana Act connotes that if agricultural land, such as the land we are concerned with, is no longer required, the patta thereof shall be made in favour of the person from whom the land was acquired provided that the person consents to refund the compensation originally paid to him. Admittedly, in the present case, after acquisition of the suit land, the plaintiffs' father having received the compensation filed the representation before the respondents after lapse of 30 years. The plaintiffs do not explain as to how the land acquired in 1963 for the purpose of NSP continued to be in the nature of agricultural land so as to attract the provisions of Sec. 54-A of the Telangana Act. 15. Sec. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act prescribes that where the Collector has made an award under Sec. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Admittedly, there is no dispute that possession of the suit land was taken by the Government and as such, the suit land stood vested in the government free from all encumbrances. Sec. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that where possession of the land has not been taken, the government is at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition. Thus, it indicates that once the possession has been taken, the government cannot ordinarily withdraw from the acquisition. Thus, a conjoint reading of Ss. Sec. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that where possession of the land has not been taken, the government is at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition. Thus, it indicates that once the possession has been taken, the government cannot ordinarily withdraw from the acquisition. Thus, a conjoint reading of Ss. 16 and 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and Sec. 54-A of the Telangana Area Act, it is clear that after possession of the acquired land is taken, ordinarily, the government cannot re-convey it to the original owner. 16. Coming to the decision of the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syed Akbar (supra), the decision was overruled by the Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 1999 (5) ALD 391 D.B., considering the interplay between Sec. 54-A of the Telangana Act and Ss. 16 and 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is held therein as under:- "13. From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions, it follows that (1) under Sec. 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 re-assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order." The Apex Court further observed that:- "15. ...the land is no more required is a decision required to be made by the competent authority. As in the present case, mere letter of Resident Engineer that the unused land is no more required is not enough. When the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act which is vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances, the question of re-conveying the land as claimed by the respondent could not be accepted in view of the clear position of law stated in the decisions of this Court aforementioned." 17. From the above, the correspondence among the officials of the respondents, cannot be a ground for the plaintiffs to contend that the Government cannot rescind from its decision to reconvey the suit land in their favour. From the above, the correspondence among the officials of the respondents, cannot be a ground for the plaintiffs to contend that the Government cannot rescind from its decision to reconvey the suit land in their favour. Since the possession of the suit land has been taken by the Government and the suit land has vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances, re-conveyance cannot be made as a matter of course. Therefore, in the present case, since the Government have taken a decision not to reconvey the suit land as it is acquired for departmental use, this Court sees no irregularity or illegality with the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit. 18. For the foregoing discussion, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.3 of 1999, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, dtd. 10/7/2002. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.