Dismissed

Mrs. Juveria Fatima , Zubera v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary of Industries

Telangana HC11 Sept 2024WP/21549/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed five writ petitions challenging the validity of a land acquisition notice and seeking re-conveyance of land not used for the original purpose. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that once compensation is paid, ownership vests in the State, preventing restitution even if the public purpose fails. The Court upheld the respondents' right to utilize the lan

What did the court decide?

The petitions seeking direction to hand over possession and declare the acquisition notice illegal were dismissed without costs.

Mrs. Juveria Fatima , Zubera Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS: 21483 21549 21576 AND 21555 0F 2008

¶7

W.P.NO: 21483 OF 2008

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . Syed Ali, S/o. Sri Syed Rahim, Aged about 31 years, occ: Business. 2. Syed Masood, S/o. Sri Syed Rahim, Aged about 36^years, Occ:^Business Both are Rt/o. H.No. 10-4-800, 1st Lancer, Hyderabad-500 028

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of AP., rep. by its Secretary of lndustries, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition^{(lndustries),} office^{of the} Ranga Reddy District Collectorate Khairatabad, Hyderabad

¶14

The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Nampally^{Station Road,} Nampally, Hyderabad

¶15

The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Collectorate, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶16

The TRANSCO, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad.

¶17

The APGENCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, rep.^{by its} Managing Director.

¶18

(R6 is impleaded as per Court Order dt:1911112009 in WP.MP.No.4651/2009)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,} the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ or any appropriate writ or writs or direction more^particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to^{handoverthe actual} physical and vacant possession of land admeasuring 400 sq.yards in Sy.No.2B7^of Shankarapally village and Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District} to^{the petitionersby} holding the respondents have failed to comply the^provisions of^company acquisition in chapter 7 of the Land Acquisition^Act and^{consequently declare the}

¶21

¶22

notice under^{section 4(1) of Land AcquisitionAct dated 14'2'1996} IS illegal, arbitrary, and^{unco nstitutional'}

¶23

l.A. NO:^{1 0F 2008(WPM P. NO:280 65oF 2008)}

¶24

Petition under^{Section151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay} of allotment^{of the land admeasuring Ac"l 1"17 gts bearing in Sy No'287of} shankarpally^{village and Mandal, RangaReddy Districtto any other company or} firm etc

¶25

l.A. NO: 2^{O F 2008(WPMP.NO: 28066 OF2008)}

¶26

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to stay} the sale^{or any kind of transfer of lands bearing in sy No'287 of Shankarpally} Village and^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy district'admeasuringAc l l l T gts' pending} disposal of^{the above writ petition'}

¶27

Counsel for^{the Petitioners:SRI RAJAGOPALLAVANTAYI} ;;;;;;i for^{the Respondent Nos'1 To 4: GP FoR REVENUE} Counsel for^{the ResponO"ni tlot'S & 6: SRI C'RAGHU'SC FORAP GENCO}

¶28

W.P.NO:^{21549 0F 2008}

¶29

Between:

¶30

trrlrs. Juveria Fatima @^{Zubera, W/o Sadat Ali Khan Housewife F/o'10-3-} T,iiati)lr,'^{5Li< ni"Joizno Floor, Humavunnasar,Hvderabao...rar,r,o*=*}

¶31

AND

¶32

The State^{of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary of lndustries'A'P Secretariat'} Hvderabad.

¶33

2 if,Iti""[r Deoutv Collector,^{LandAcquisition, (lndustries) Office of the} ffi#hHi;iiJt,ji"icol"itorrte,^{Khairatabad'.Hvderabad'}

¶34

3 iH'ihi;iffir*;^{j;il;,, i;J Alminiitiation,t'rdmparrvStationRoad'} Nampally,^HYderabad.

¶35

4 it" 5,ii c,if^f 6cto r,^{Rang a Reddy District Collectorate' Khairatabad'} Hvderabad."1'

¶36

5 rt"iHlr.r"sco,^{Rep. bv its Managing Director' Hyderabad'} 6 +iiE A'PGEnco',^{Vdtrti Sorona,"xr'"'lratabad,Hvderabad'rep bv its} Managing Director. iiii'["ir"pr"JJ"das^{per Court order dt:18/1212009in wP'MP No'4653/2009)}

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

¶39

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ or any appropriate writ or writs or direction/s^more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the^{respondents to} handover the actual,^physical and vacant^{possessionof landadmeasuring 400 sq.} yards in SY.No. 287 of Shankarpally Village and lt/andal, Ranga Reddy^{District to} the^petitioner by holding the^{respondents have failedto comply the provisions of} company acquisition, in chapter^{7 of the Land AcquisitionAct andconsequently} declare the notice under section⁴⁽¹ )of^{Land Acquisition Act dt. 14-2-1996is} illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶40

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008^(WPMP. NO:^{28144OF 2008)}

¶41

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto stay} the sale or any kind of transfer^{of lands bearingin Sy. No. 287 of Shankarpally} Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy^{DistrictadmeasuringAc 1 1 .1 7 gts pending} disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶42

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008^(WPMP. NO:^{28145 OF2008)}

¶43

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High courtmaybe pleasedto stay} of allotment of the land Admeasuring^{Ac 11.17gts bearing in Sy.No. 287 of} Shankarpally Village and^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to any other company or} firm etc.

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIRAJAGOPALLAVANTAYI} Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.5& 6: M/s. K.UDAYASRI}

¶45

W.P.NO: 21576 OF 2008

¶46

Between:

¶47

Sayeeda Sameena, D/o. Late^{M.A.Rasheed,Agedabout 38 years, Presently} residing at USA.

¶48

Farhan" Rasheed, S/o.^{Late M.A.Rasheed,Aged about 36 years,Occ:} Service, Presently residing at USA,

¶49

¶50

Both are Rep by Natural Guardian and Mother lvlrs.Azmath Rasheed,W/o. LATE M.A Rasheed, aged 65 years, Retd Govt.Srvice,Flat No.306, Vijaya Towers, Near Kamma Sang, Nagarjuna Nagar, Ameerpet, Hydera6ad500016.

¶51

...PET|T|ONERS

¶52

AND

¶53

The State of A.P., Rep by its Secretary of lndustries, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶54

The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, (industries), Office of the Eanga Rgddy District Collectorat Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶55

The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶56

The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Collectorate, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶57

The TRANSCO, Rep by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 6. The APGENCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director.

¶58

(R6 is impleaded as per Court Order dt:19l11l2OOg in WP.MP.No.465212009)

¶59

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶60

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tb issue a writ or any appropriate writ or writs or 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 District 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 consequenfly declare the notice under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act dated 14-02-1996 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶61

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 28186OF 2008)

¶62

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 stay the sale or any kind of transfer of lands bearing in sy.No.287 of Shankarpally village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, admeasuring Ac.11.17 gts, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶63

I // .//_/,. // ./

¶64

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 28187 OF 2008)

¶65

Petition under Section 151 CPG praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of allotment of the land admeasuring Ac.11.17 gts bearing in sy.No.2B7 of shankarpally village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to any other company or firm etc.

¶66

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: M/s. K.UDAYA SRI

¶67

W.P.NO: 21555 OF 2008

¶68

Betwee n:

¶69

1 . Shairuku Sultana,^\N lo. lt(irza lvlukaram Baig, Aged about 50^years, Occ: Housewife.

¶70

Mohd. Ameeruddin Ahmed, S/o. Basheer Ahmed, Aged about 60^years, Occ: Engineer,

¶71

Both are No.22-4-424, Kotla Aleezia, Hyderabad.

¶72

...PETITIONERS

¶73

AND

¶74

TheStateof A.P., Represented byitsSecretaryof lndustries, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶75

The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition(ind ustries), office of the Ranga Reddy District Collectorate, Khairatabad Hyderabad.

¶76

The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Namapally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶77

The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Collecorate, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶78

The TRANSCO, Rep by its Managing Director, Hyderabad.

¶79

The APGENCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad,^rep. by^its Managing Director.

¶80

(R6 is impleaded as per Court Order dt:1911112009 in WP.l,4P.No.4649/2009)

¶81

...RESPONDENTS

¶82

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or any appropriate writ or writs or 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 District to the^petitioners by holding the respondents have failed to comply the^provisions

¶83

of company acquisition, in chapter 7 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 14-02-1996 is illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutio nal.

¶84

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 28151 OF 2008)

¶85

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 stay the sale or any kind of transfer of lands bearing in Sy.No.287 of Shankarpally Village and l,4andal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring ac.11.17 gts, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶86

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 28152 OF 2008)

¶87

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 stay of allotment of the land admeasuring 4c.11.17 gts bearing in Sy.No.287 of shankarpally village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to any other company or firm etc.

¶88

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI C .RAGHU, SC FOR AP GENCO

¶89

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶90

¶91

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶92

WRIT PETITION Nos.2 1483 2L549 2L576 ar.d.21555 of 2OO8 COMMON ORDER,:

¶93

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.

¶94

W.P.No.21483 of 2008 is taken up as leading case to^decide the lrls in these cases. The said Writ Petition, under Article^{226 of the} Constitution of India, is filed seeking following reiief:

¶95

". . . to issue a Wit or ang approprtate uit or wits^{dtrection/ s more} parttcularlg in th-e nature of Wit of mandamus directing the^respondents to hqndouer th,e actua\ phAsical and vacant^possession of^land admeasuing 400 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.287 of Shankarpallg^Villageand Mandal, Ronga Reddy Dist b the^petitioners bg^{holding the respondents} haue failed to complA the^prouisions of compang acqutsition, in^chapter7 of the Land Acquisition Act, and consequentlq^declare the^{nottce under} Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act dated.l4'^{02-1996ts illegal,} arbttrary and unconstitutiondl..'

¶96

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.2l97/1986 and 2199 11986 dated 08.09.1986 respectively. It is their case that land comprising an extent of Ac.1 1- l7gts forming part of Sy.No.287 situated at Shankerpally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, originally

¶97

¶98

belonged to Ganapuram Ramuiu and others, .rho mer<le laycut and converted into plots and thereafter excrcuted various sale rleed.s in favour of prospective purchasers. It is further case of the petitioncrs that a notification has been issued by the respondent No.2 for acquiring an extent of Ac.22l .OO gts. for thc purpose of establishment oi Metro Naptha Based power Station. The respondent No.2 has issued land acquisition proceedings vide E1,lST22/ 1995 dated 25.08.i995 and issued notification d.ated 14.O2.1996 undcr Section 4(l) of the La'd Acquisition Act, rg94 in the name of original ow.er Ganapuram Ramulu and othcrs. 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 lar-rd acquisition proceedings, as their narnes 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 daLed 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.4Sl2OOl and pending for adjudication. It is stated that in second week of March, 2OOg, the petitioners have submitted representations to tlre respondents and a_[so issued legal

¶99

¶100

notice dated 11.08.2008 requesting to re-assign the^{land acquired as} the same was not used for the^{purposefor which it was acquired. It} is their case that the subject land^was 4cquired^{for the purpose of} Metro Naptha Based Power Station in^{the largel public interest but} in view of failure to establish Metro^{Naptha Based PowerStation,the} question of public purpose does not survive and^{the Government is} not having any right to utilize the^{acquiredland for any other} purpose and the same has to be reverted back^{to the petitioners.}

¶101

The respondent No.6 has filed counter^{affidavitinter alia} stating that on the requisition^{madeby the erstwhiie APSEBto setup} 1400 MW Gas Based Thermal^{PowerStationat Shankarpally,Ranga} Reddy District, the State Government^{has acquiredthe land} admeasuring Ac.226.06 of^{private land in varioussurveynumbers,} in addition to the extent of Ac.91.15^{gts of Governmentland. It is} stated that the Land Acquisition^{Officerafter following the procedure} under the provisions of the Act,^{has passedanaward} No.B/ 1181/ 1995 dated^{16.12.2000and deposited the compensation} amount. It is further stated that^{afterbifurcation of erstwhile APSEB} into APGENCO and APIRANSCO^{and four other distribution} companies, the possession o[^{the land was handed overto APGENCO} but due to non-availability of^{basic inputs of waterand fuel at} Shankarpally and other circumstances,^{the setting up of projectas}

¶102

-1

¶103

¶104

desired by ApSDB has become difficult at the proposed location and the APGENCO dropped the yrroposal and CeciCcd to set up the project in some othcr place. It is also. stated that the names of petitioners lvcrc not eritered in rcvcnue records and their names v/ere also not found in the records relating to acquisttion proceedings. It is thetr contention that APGENCO has been in possession of the said iand and the compensarion amount rvas aL.eady depcsited. It is furthcr stated once the land rvas acquired by paying cornpensation, the same will be vested with the Rcquisition Department through the State and thc rights of the land owners become divested and they cease to be owncrs and therefore, they are not entitled for restitution of possession of land acquired oin the ground that the lanc was not used for the purpose for rvhich 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 rvith ApGENCO vide letrer r.ro. MD / CEl C/ cS/ SE/ C er / ADE / T / T1 /F/ Shankarpally/ D'No'21/08 dated 1r.o1.2008. It is further srated that AprRANSco 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 contrar5z to rules and ultimately, prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

¶105

¶106

¶107

The respondent No.S also filed counter affidavit^{on similar lines} as that of counter affidavit fi1ed by the^{respondentNo.6.}

¶108

Considered the submissions of the^{learned counseifor the} respective parties and^perused the^record.

¶109

It is stated that patta land admeasuting^{Ac.226.06gts in} various survey numbers at Shankarpally^{Village and Mandal, and} Government Land admeasuring^{Ac.91 .} 15^{gts,situatedat} Shankarpally Village and^{Mandal,was acquiredfor the purpose of} construction of Metro Naptha^{Based Power Station by the erstwhile} APSEB. The land acquisition^{proceedingswere initiatedvide} No.Ell5722195 dated 25.08.1995^{and notification underSection} 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,^{was issuedon 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^{participatedinthe acquisition} proceedings and the claims of the^{petitioners were also considered} while issuing notice under^{Section9(t) of the Act dated C3.04.1997.} It is stated that thereafter^{anaward waspassed in} Proc.No.B/ 1 181/95 dated^{16.|2.2OOO. Inview of the serious} disputes, the compensation^{determinedunder the provisionsof the} Land Acquisition Act,^{was deposited before the Civil Courtunder} Section 30 of the Act^{for apportionmentof the same. The caseof the}

¶110

,/ -/

¶111

¶112

petitioncrs is that their lanqls 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 erstu,hile ApSDB into ApGDNCO, APTRANSCO, and fcur other distribution companics, possession of the land v,ras handed over to APGENCO. Due ro the lack of basic resoruces such as water and fuel at Shankarpally, a-long with other circumstances, the proposed project by ApSEB could not be established at that locatior-r. Consequently, APGENCO clropped the proposal and clecided 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 sete, and the original olvners rights are divested, making thcm ineligible for restitution of possession on the grounds that the lancl was not used for the

¶113

purpose for which it was

¶114

acquired. It is further case of the respondents that ApTRANSCO requested APGENCO to transfer 75 Acres of land from Ac.226.O6 gts for construction of 4OO KV subsiation at Shankarpally and tl.re ApGENCO agreed [o surrender Ac.63.00 gts of land vide letter No.MD/CE/C/GS/S E/C &1/ AEE/T/Tllr/Shankarpaly /D.No.21/08 dated 11.01.2008. It is also case of the respondents that since APIRANSCO is part and parcel of

¶115

¶116

\ \

¶117

APSBB, APGENCO's transfer of land for the construction of the substation cannot be stated as violation of^purpose of acquisition.

¶118

In Northern Indlan Glass Industries us. Jdswdnt Slngh &

¶119

othersl, 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 restitutionof the land. Paras} 10 and 1 1 of the said decision, reads as^follows:

¶120

"1O. In Chandragauda Ramgonda Patit us. State of Maharashtra [(1996) 6 SCC 4051 it is stated that^{the acquired landremoining unuttlizedu.)as} not intended to be restituted to tlE erstuhile^{oluner to tuhomadequate} compensation Lr.as paid according^{to the market ualueas on the date of} notifcation.

¶121

Yet again in C.Padma Vs. DA. SecA.^To the^{Cout. oi T.N} [(1997)² SCC 624, it is hetd that acquired^{land hauing uestedin the State and the} compensation hauing been^paid to^the claimant,^{he wasnot entitledto} restitution orfpossession on the ground that^{either ortginalpublic purpose} had ceased to be in operation or the tand could^{not be used} for^other purpose."

¶122

g. Thus it is clear from the above^{judgmentthat the land} acquired, vests in the Government^{absolutely free from all} encumbrances; the land acquired for^{a public purposecouldbe} utilized for any other^{public purpose;and the acquiredland whichis}

¶123

'^{(2003) l scc 33s}

¶124

¶125

vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot bc re_ assigned or re-conveyecl to rhc origirral owner.

¶126

For the aforesaicr reasons, the petitioncrs in these writ petitions have not macie out any casc for granting relief as sought for. 'Ihcse batch of writ petitions filed by thc petitioners are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed.

¶127