Dismissed

Telangana State Industrial Infrastucture v. Y.Chandrasekhara Chowdary

Telangana HC22 Mar 2022WA/61/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bench dismissed writ appeals preferred by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. and State agencies challenging a Single Judge's order. The Single Judge had quashed suo-motu proceedings for declaring land surplus and allowing an allotment to the Corporation, holding that initiating notices against deceased original owners without verifying subsequent sales t

What did the court decide?

All writ appeals dismissed; the Single Judge's order quashing the suo-motu proceedings and allotment order is upheld.

Telangana State Industrial Infrastucture Vs… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NOS: 61 AND 62 OF 2018 AND WRIT APPEAL NOS: 731 AND 732 OF 2018

¶6

WA NO: 61 OF 20'18

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal^preferred against the order dl.28.07.2017 passed in WP.No. 20780 OF 2008 on the file of the High Co u rt.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastucture, Corporation Ltd., Parishram Bahvan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO. 3

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Y.Chandrasekhara Chowdary, S/o. Late Y.M.K. Chadnra Chowdhary, Occ. Business, USA, Rep. by his Power of Attorney Holder R.Suresh, S/o. Late R.J. Chowdary, Age 37 years, Occ. Business, No.6-3-1211612 Umanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

Smt. R. Geetha,, W/o. R.Vasudeva Prasad, R/o.6-3-1218/612Umangar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

R. Vasudeva Prasad, S/o. R.J. Chowdhary, R/o.6-3-'1218/612Umangar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶15

Smt. R. Seema, Wo. Suresh, R/o. 6-3-121 8/6/2 Umangar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶16

Dr. Y. Laxmi, W/o. Dr. Y. Chandrasekhara Chowdhary,^R/o. USA,^{Rep.by her} Power of Attorney holder R- Suresh, S/o. Late R.J. Chowdary, R/o. 6-31 21 81612 Umangar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶17

R. Suresh, S/o. Late R.J. Chowdhary, Occ. Business,^{No.6-3-12181612} Umangar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS^/VRIT PETITIONERS

¶19

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by the Principal Secretary,^{Revenue (Land} Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶20

)--

¶21

¶22

The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, under the Repeated Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of orders dt.28.07.2017 made in WP.No. 20780 of 2008, pending disposal of Writ Appeal.

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. L PRABHAKAR REDDY SC FOR TSItC

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRl. H. VENUGOPAL

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.7 & 8: GP FOR REVENUE/

¶29

ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶30

WA NO: 62 OF 2018

¶31

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed dated 28-07-2017 in W.P. No. 20781 o 2008. on the file of the High Court.

¶32

Between:

¶33

Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corp.Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Parishram Mayan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶34

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO. 3

¶35

AND

¶36

I . 9r!. Susheela Bai, Occ Housewife, R/o.^{'14-10-584/85,} Lower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

¶37

Sri M. Mahesh, Legal Practitioner, Rio. 1 3-1-1 133/A, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad,

¶38

....RESPONDENTS^/VRIT PETITIONERS

¶39

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶40

The Joint Collector, Hyderabad. lncharge of the Office of the Special Officer and Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad unddr the Repealed Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Hyderabad.

¶41

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶42

,-t 3

¶43

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of orders dated 28-07-2017 made in WP No. 20781 o'f 2008, pending disposal of Writ Appeal,

¶45

Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. L PRABHAKAR REDDY SC FOR TSIIC

¶46

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRl. M.V. DURGA PRASAD

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶48

WA NO: 731 OF 2019

¶49

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preferred Against the Order dated 28-07-2017, Passed in W.P.No. 20780 of 2008on the file of the High Court.

¶50

Between:

¶51

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary,^Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶52

The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land^Ceiling, Hyderabad, Under the Repealed Urban Land Ceiling and^{RegulationAct,} 1076, Hyderabad, rep. by the District Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District.. Now} District Collector (ULC), Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶53

...APPELLANTS/respondents no.¹ & 2

¶54

AND

¶55

'1 . Y. Chandrasekhara Chowdary and 6 Others, S/o Late Y M K Chandra Chowdhary, Business, USA, Rep. by his Power^{of Attomey Holder R. Suresh'} S/o Late R.J.Chowdary 37, Business^{631211612UmanagarBegumpet,} Hyderabad.

¶56

Smt. R Geetha, Wo R Vasudeva Prasad,^{6312181612,Uma Nagar,} Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶57

R. Vasudeva Prasad, S/o R J Chowdhary, 631218/6/2,^{Uma Nagar,} Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶58

Smt. R. Seema, W/o Suresh, 6312181612, Uma Nagar,^Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶59

Dr. Y Laxmi, W/o DrY Chandrasekhara Chowdhary,^{Fl/o USA Rep.by her} Power of Attorney holder R Suresh Sic) Late Chowdhary,^{6312181612'Uma} Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶60

t(."

¶61

R. Suresh, S/o Late R J Chowdhary, Business, 6312181612, Uma Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶62

RESPONDENTSA/VRIT PETITIOENRS NO. 1 TO 6

¶63

Andhra Pradesh lndustrial lnfrasinature Corporation Ltd., Now reconstituted as Telang_ana lndustlial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Parishram Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶64

..,RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO. 3

¶65

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶66

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders in W.P.No. 20780 of 2008, dated 28.07.2017, pending disposal of writ appeal.

¶67

Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR REVENUE

¶68

Counsel for th_e Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRl. H VENUGOPAL

¶69

Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: SRl. L. PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSHC

¶70

WA NO: 732OF 2019

¶71

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent appeal preferred against the order dated.28-07-2017 passed in WP.NO.207B1/2OOBon the file of the High Court.

¶72

Between:

¶73

The State of Telangana and another, Rep. by the principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶74

]he. Special Officer.and Competent Authority, Urban land Ceiling, Hyderabad, Under the Repealed Urban Land Ceiling and Regulatiori' n'ct, ISZO, Hyderabad, rep. by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

¶75

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS NO. 1 & 2

¶76

AND

¶77

Smt. Susheela Bai, Wo. Arjun Singh, Occ. Housewife, R/o. 14-10-584/85, Lower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

¶78

M. Mahesh, S/o. Late M. Munnalal, Legal practitioner, R/o. 13-1-.1^.133/A, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad

¶79

.....RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIOENRS NO.^.1 AND 2

¶80

¶81

Andhra Pradesh lndustrial lnfrastructure^{Corporation Ltd., now reconstituted} as Telangana lndustrial lnfrastrucure Corporation Ltd.^{Rep.by its N4anaging} Director, Parishram Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶82

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.¹

¶83

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶84

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt maybe pleased pleased} to suspend the orders in W.P.No.^{20781 of 2008,d1.28.07.2008,pending disposal} of writ appeal.

¶85

Counsel for the Appellants:SRl. GP^{FOR REVENUE}

¶86

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.^{1 & 2: SRl. M V DURGA PRASAD}

¶87

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3:^{SRl. L. PRABHAKARREDDY, SC FOR} TSHC

¶88

The Court delivered the following:

¶89

(

¶90

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶91

AND

¶92

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶93

WRIT APPEAL No.61 and 62 of 2018

¶94

AND

¶95

WRIT APPEAL No.731 and,732 of 2OL9

¶96

COMMON JUDGMENT i (per Hon'bte Sri Justice Abhinan(l Kumer ShauiLi)

¶97

Ail these Writ Appeals are being disposed of as they arise out of the common order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.20780 and 20781 of 2008, dated 28.07.20t7.

¶98

While W.A.Nos.73 1 and 732 ol 2Ol9 are filed the State, W.A.Nos.61 and 62 of 2Ol8 are preferred by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, in the writ petitions.

¶99

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.73 1 and 732 ol 20 19; Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

¶100

,,) HCJ & AKS, J W A No 6l of20l8 and batch

¶101

appearing for the Telangana State Industriai Infrastructure Corporation Limited, which is the appellant in W.A.Nos.61 and 62 of 20 18; Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent Nos.l and 2 in W.A.No.61 of 20 18; and Sri H. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent Nos.1 to 6ⁱⁿ W.A.No.731 of 2019.

¶102

For the sake ol convenience, the facts in^W.A.No'731 of 201.9 are discussed hereunder.

¶103

It has been contended by the^{appellantsthat} unofficial respondents have^{challengedthe action of the} respondents in issuing the proceedings in C.C.No.H1/2672106 under the^{provisions of UrbanLand} (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976^(hereinafter be^referred as^uthe Land Ceiling Act") in^{computing the land of} unofiicial respondents admeasuring^{36,623-54 sq' meters} (Ac.0.91^t/z gts.\ in Sy.No.340 of Poppalaguda^Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District' in suo-motu} proceedings and the consequential allotment^{of the iand}

¶104

i--

¶105

HCJ & AKS. J 3 W ANo.6l of20l8 and barch

¶106

treating it as surplus in favour of the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited by issuing G.O.Ms.No.963, Revenue (UC-l) Department, dated 02.08.2008 and also challenging the action of the appellants in issuing proceedings in respect of 62,636-82 sq. meters of land in Sy.Nos.340 and 341 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and allotting the land by treating it as surplus in favour of the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, vide G.O.Ms.No.963, Revenue (UC-l) Department, dated 02.08.2008, as arbitrary and illegal. It is contended by the appellants that a learned Singte Judge of this Court without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants had allowed both the writ petitions by common order dated 28.O7.2017. Aggrieved by the sarne, the appellants have filed the present Writ Appeals.

¶107

Learned counsel for appellants had contended that the iands in Sy.Nos.335, 336, 338, 340, 34t and. 342, totally admeasuring Acs.80-25 gts., which was declared as evacuee property under the provisions of the

¶108

HCJ & AKS. J W.A.No 6l of20l8 and batch

¶109

¶110

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for brevity "the Evacuee Property Act") and the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay, Ministry of Rehabilitation. allotted the said land to one Mr. Vasudev, S/o. Khemchand, who was a displaced person, under allotment order dated 23.06.1956, as per the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. As unofficial respondents claiming title through his predecessor in title, nameiy Sri Vasudev, who inturn sold the land to one Smt A. Kamala Devi, w/o. A. Seetharamaiah and Smt. G Manoharama, w/o. G. Viswanatham, vide registered Sale Deed dated 17.12.1968 and a Certificate under Section 50B of the Talangana Land Revenue Act was also issued in favour of unofficial respondents

¶111

7 . It has been further contended by the appellants that the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.455 (UC-l) Department, dated 29.07.2OO2, enabling allotment of surplus land to the third parties, who are in occupation of the same and some eight persons, claiming to be in occupation of the land to an extent of Acs.11-05 gts. in

¶112

HCJ & AKS. J 5 WA No.6l of20l8 and batch

¶113

Sy.No.34 I of Poppalaguda Vil1age, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, submitted applications seeking exemption of the said land on the ground that they purchased the same under the registered sale deeds. Upon such applications, respondent No.2 took suo-motu proceedings under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and issued Notice dated 29.05.2006 to Sri Vasudev, under Section 6(2) of Urban Land Ceiling Act in respect of Acs.l1-27 gts. of land in Sy.No.34i of PoppalagudaVillage, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and in pursuance of the suo-motu proceedings, a report dated 28.O8.2006 was submitted to respondent No.2, wherein the Enquiry Officer by a., endorsement dated |Z.0Z.2006 stated that the original Pattadar Sri Vasudev was holding the extent of land to his entitlement under the provisions of Land Ceiling Act and basing on the said report, respondent No.2 passed order dated 09,08.2006 preparing draft statement holding that Sri Vasudev was holding surplus land holder in respect of 62,636-87 sq. meters of land in Sy.Nos.34O and 341 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar

¶114

HCJ & AKS, J 6 w.A.No.6t of20l8 and barch

¶115

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,^{therefore,the appellants} have rightly followed the law^{and held that the original} pattadar was holding excess land^{to his entitlement, which} is contrary to the Urban^{Land CeilingAct ald, therefore,} sought to pass appropriate^{ordersin the Writ Appeals by} setting aside the order^{of the learned Single Judge.}

¶116

On the other hand,^{the learned counsel for unofficial} respondents had contended^{that the learned Single Judge} has rightly allowed^{the writ petitions in favourof unofficial} respondents arrd at the^{time of initiating suo-motu} proceedings against Sri^{Vasudev,who was not aliveat the} time of initiating^{suo-motu proceedings,there cannot be} any order against a^{dead person and the sale deeds} executed in favour^{of unofficialrespondents dates back to} 1964 and the appellants,^{without following the revenue} record, had issued^{suo-motu proceedingswithout} appreciating the^{fact that the originalpattadar has already} soid the land in^{favourof Smt. A. Kamala Devi and Smt'G'} Manoharama by way^{of registeredsale deeds during the} year 1964 and 1968^{and that unofficial respondents'}

¶117

(

¶118

IICJ & AKS, ,' 7 w.A No 6l of20l8 and barch

¶119

predecessors have purchased from Smt. A. Kamala Devi and Smt. G. Manoharama and hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly aliowed the writ petitions in favour of unofficial respondents as suo-motu proceedings \'e re initiated by the appellants against a dead person.

¶120

9 . This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition holding that the appellants have initiated suo-motu proceedings against a dead person by issuing Notice dated 29.05.2006 and has rightly allowed the writ petitions with the following observations:

¶121

"ln STATtr OF UTTAR PRADESH v. HARI RAMr and GAJANAN KAMLYA PATTL V. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (ULC)2 , the procedure with regard to dispossession and the effect of Repeal Act was considered. Now the law is well settled that the notice under Section 10(5) as well as 10(6) of the Act should be served on the persons who are in possession as well as on the declarant and in view

¶122

'^{(2013)4 scc280}

¶123

'1zora1^{rz scc sz:}

¶124

HCJ & AKS. J W A.No 6l of20l8 and barch

¶125

¶126

of the said decisions, the alleged taking over of possession on paper without issuing notice to the petitioners is bad in law. There is no dispute that all the proceedings were taken behind the back of the petitioners and in the name of the deceased original owner. In spite of coming to know of the fact of selling away the entire land by the original owner, no effort was made by the second respondent for verifying the^purchases, but^he passed order merely basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer who stated^that _th€^{name of the original owner was reflectedin} the revenue records. At the time when^the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force, the land was in^peripheral area^and benefit of G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988^was available to the declarants, if any, but no^such provision was made while calculating the land' In a case of suo motu proceedings, the second respondent should have been more careful, but took several proceedings under the Act,^without the knowledge of the subsequent^purchasers. Hence, this Court has no doubt with^{regard to} invalidity of the proceedings and, accordingly,^all the proceedings emanating from the suo^motu proceedings under File in CC.No.H1/2672106 are quashed and consequently G.O.Ms.No.963, Revenue^(UC.l) Department, dated 02.08.2008,^is set aside.

¶127

HCJ & AKS. J w A.No 6l of 2018 a,rd bar.h

¶128

¶129

Both the Writ Petitions are, accordingly,

¶130

a11owed."

¶131

Therefore, having rega-rd to the cogent and convincing reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions, while concluding that there cannot be any proceedings against a dead person, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶132

1 1. Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶133

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶134

any, sha11 stand closed.

¶135

SD/.K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEC OFFICER

To,

'1 . 4 CCs to Sri. L Prabhakar^{Reddv, SC t9r rSllCIOPUC]} Z. Z CCsto^{Sri.H. Venugopal, AdvocateTOPUC-]-} ^. a. , aa.^{to Sri. M.V. Duiga Prasad, Advocate[OPU-C]} 4. TWo CCs to^{GP for nevenue,HighCourtloi the Slateof Telangana [OUTI} S. f*o CC.^{to tt" AdvocateGeneril,High Court for the State of Telangana'} lourl

¶140