ORDER : The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.No.21483 of 2008 is taken up as leading case to decide the lis in these cases. The said Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking following relief: “…to issue a Writ or any appropriate writ or writs direction/s more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to handover the actual, physical and vacant possession of land admeasuring 400 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.287 of Shankarpally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist to the petitioners by holding the respondents have failed to comply the provisions of company acquisition, in chapter 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, and consequently declare the notice under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act dated.14- 02-1996 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional..” 3. It is stated that the petitioners have purchased two plots admeasuring 200 sq.yards each bearing Plot Nos.10 and 11 under registered sale deeds vide document Nos.2197/1986 and 2199/1986 dated 08.09.1986 respectively. It is their case that land comprising an extent of Ac.11-17gts forming part of Sy.No.287 situated at Shankerpally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, originally belonged to Ganapuram Ramulu and others, who made layout and converted into plots and thereafter executed various sale deeds in favour of prospective purchasers. It is further case of the petitioners that a notification has been issued by the respondent No.2 for acquiring an extent of Ac.221.00 gts for the purpose of establishment of Metro Naptha Based Power Station. The respondent No.2 has issued land acquisition proceedings vide E1/5722/1995 dated 25.08.1995 and issued notification dated 14.02.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the name of original owner Ganapuram Ramulu and others. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in A.P.Gazette in R.R.No.31 dated 30.12.1996 and the petitioners participated in the said land acquisition proceedings, as their names were shown as interested persons, after receipt of notice issued under Section 9 of the Act dated 03.04.1997. It is stated that after following the procedure, the respondent No.2 determined the compensation payable vide Award dated 16.12.2000 vide File No.B/1181/1995. It is stated that after following the procedure, the respondent No.2 determined the compensation payable vide Award dated 16.12.2000 vide File No.B/1181/1995. As there were several claims over the property under acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) referred the dispute under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of compensation and the same was registered vide O.P.No.45/2001 and pending for adjudication. It is stated that in second week of March, 2008, the petitioners have submitted representations to the respondents and also issued legal notice dated 11.08.2008 requesting to re-assign the land acquired as the same was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. It is their case that the subject land was acquired for the purpose of Metro Naptha Based Power Station in the larger public interest but in view of failure to establish Metro Naptha Based Power Station, the question of public purpose does not survive and the Government is not having any right to utilize the acquired land for any other purpose and the same has to be reverted back to the petitioners. 4. The respondent No.6 has filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that on the requisition made by the erstwhile APSEB to setup 1400 MW Gas Based Thermal Power Station at Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District, the State Government has acquired the land admeasuring Ac.226.06 of private land in various survey numbers, in addition to the extent of Ac.91.15 gts of Government land. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure under the provisions of the Act, has passed an award No.B/1181/1995 dated 16.12.2000 and deposited the compensation amount. It is further stated that after bifurcation of erstwhile APSEB into APGENCO and APTRANSCO and four other distribution companies, the possession of the land was handed over to APGENCO but due to non-availability of basic inputs of water and fuel at Shankarpally and other circumstances, the setting up of project as desired by APSEB has become difficult at the proposed location and the APGENCO dropped the proposal and decided to set up the project in some other place. It is also stated that the names of petitioners were not entered in revenue records and their names were also not found in the records relating to acquisition proceedings. It is their contention that APGENCO has been in possession of the said land and the compensation amount was already deposited. It is also stated that the names of petitioners were not entered in revenue records and their names were also not found in the records relating to acquisition proceedings. It is their contention that APGENCO has been in possession of the said land and the compensation amount was already deposited. It is further stated once the land was acquired by paying compensation, the same will be vested with the Requisition Department through the State and the rights of the land owners become divested and they cease to be owners and therefore, they are not entitled for restitution of possession of land acquired on the ground that the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. It is further stated that APTRANSCO has requested the APGENCO an extent of Ac.75.00 gts of land out of Ac.226.06 gts for the purpose of constructing 400 KV sub-station at Shankarpally and APGENCO has accepted to surrender 63 acres of land out of total land available with APGENCO vide letter No.MD/CE/C/GS/SE/C &1/AEE/T/T1/F/Shankarpally/ D.No.21/08 dated 11.01.2008. It is further stated that APTRANSCO is part and parcel of APSEB and therefore, surrendering part of the land by APGENCO to APTRANSCO for the purpose of constructing 400 KV sub-station cannot be said as illegal and contrary to rules and ultimately, prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 5. The respondent No.5 also filed counter affidavit on similar lines as that of counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 7. It is stated that patta land admeasuring Ac.226.06 gts in various survey numbers at Shankarpally Village and Mandal, and Government Land admeasuring Ac.91.15 gts, situated at Shankarpally Village and Mandal, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Metro Naptha Based Power Station by the erstwhile APSEB. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated vide No.E1/5722/95 dated 25.08.1995 and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 14.02.1996 and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in AP Gazette R.R.No.31 dated 30.12.1996. It is stated that the petitioners and others participated in the acquisition proceedings and the claims of the petitioners were also considered while issuing notice under Section 9(1) of the Act dated 03.04.1997. It is stated that thereafter an award was passed in Proc.No.B/1181/95 dated 16.12.2000. It is stated that the petitioners and others participated in the acquisition proceedings and the claims of the petitioners were also considered while issuing notice under Section 9(1) of the Act dated 03.04.1997. It is stated that thereafter an award was passed in Proc.No.B/1181/95 dated 16.12.2000. In view of the serious disputes, the compensation determined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, was deposited before the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the same. The case of the petitioners is that their lands acquired for the purpose of construction of Metro Naptha Based Power Station have not been utilized and therefore, they are entitled for re-conveyance of the same. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that after bifurcation of the erstwhile APSEB into APGENCO, APTRANSCO, and four other distribution companies, possession of the land was handed over to APGENCO. Due to the lack of basic resources such as water and fuel at Shankarpally, along with other circumstances, the proposed project by APSEB could not be established at that location. Consequently, APGENCO dropped the proposal and decided to relocate the project. It is further case of the respondents that once land is acquired and compensation paid, ownership vests with the Requisition Department through the State, and the original owners rights are divested, making them ineligible for restitution of possession on the grounds that the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. It is further case of the respondents that APTRANSCO requested APGENCO to transfer 75 Acres of land from Ac.226.06 gts for construction of 400 KV substation at Shankarpally and the APGENCO agreed to surrender Ac.63.00 gts of land vide letter No.MD/CE/C/GS/SE/C &1/ AEE/T/T1/F/Shankarpally/D.No.21/08 dated 11.01.2008. It is also case of the respondents that since APTRANSCO is part and parcel of APSEB, APGENCO’s transfer of land for the construction of the sub-station cannot be stated as violation of purpose of acquisition. 8. In Northern Indian Glass Industries vs. Jaswant Singh & others, (2003) 1 SCC 335 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the event, the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that do not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land. Paras 10 and 11 of the said decision, reads as follows: "10. In Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil vs. State of Maharashtra [ (1996) 6 SCC 405 ] it is stated that the acquired land remaining unutilized was not intended to be restituted to the erstwhile owner to whom adequate compensation was paid according to the market value as on the date of notification. 11. Yet again in C.Padma Vs. Dy. Secy. To the Govt. of T.N. [ (1997) 2 SCC 627 ], it is held that acquired land having vested in the State and the compensation having been paid to the claimant, he was not entitled to restitution of possession on the ground that either original public purpose had ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for other purpose." 9. Thus it is clear from the above judgment that the land acquired, vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances; the land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for any other public purpose; and the acquired land which is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be re-assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners in these writ petitions have not made out any case for granting relief as sought for. These batch of writ petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.