Allowed

Sooraram Pratap Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Jun 2024WP/6577/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed four writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings where possession was not taken and compensation unpaid per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Court found violation of procedural safeguards under Section 12(2) and held diversion of land for private purposes without following statutory steps amounted to fraud on the power of eminent domain.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; relief includes setting aside the award, re-conducting award enquiry, and enforcing strict compliance with Section 12(2) notice requirements.

Sooraram Pratap Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

|³²⁵² )

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 1245^{OF 20'12} WRIT PETITION No. 1294^{OF 20 12} WRIT PETITION No.6577 oF²⁰¹² AND WRIT PETITION No. 6501^{OF 2012}

¶8

WR lT PET|TION NO:^{1245 OF 2012}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Al Sadanandam S/o A. Lingaiah,^{aged 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. FIat No 402,} Lahari Residency,^{Sobhana Colony,West Marredpally, Secunderabad}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Government of Andhra^{Pradesh, Represented by its SecretaryRevenue} (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict' at Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad'}

¶15

The Special Deputy^Collector, Land^{Acquisition (lndustries),Hyderabad'}

¶16

The Andhra Pradesh^{lndustriallnfraptructurecorporation,Prishrama Bhavan,} aaineerUagh, Hyderabad^{Represefitedby its Vice-ChairmanandManaging} Director.

¶17

Emaar Properties Private^{Limited,G4chibowli, Hyderabad Represented by its} Managing Director

¶18

AP Transco, Khairatabad,^{Hyderabad Represented by its Managing Director}

¶19

The District Registrar^{(Stamps&;Registration), Ranga ReddyDistrictat} Balanagar, Hyderabad.

¶20

B. Boulder Hills Leisure^{Private Limited, BoulderHillsGolf and countryclub,} - i;dirn School of Business, Manikonda Village, Gachibowli Mandal, Hyderabad - 500032

¶21

Emaar Hills Township^{Private Limitod, BoulderHills Golfand CountryClub} - tnOlin Sifrooi of 'Business. Manikonda Village, Gachibowli N/landal, Hyderabad - 500032.

¶22

Respondent Nos. B & 9 are^{impleaded as per Court order dated 08.12.2015 in} W.P.M.P,No 11717 ol 2013

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a wnt or order/s more^{particularlyone in the natureof writ of} Mandamus setting aside^{the registration of leaseand conveyance deedsbearing} document no. 20560/2006 and 2056212006^{bothdaled 28-12-2005 0n the fite of} the seventh respondent,^{by declaring the action of the respondentsno- 4, 5 and} 6 of the diversification^{of the acquiredlind in survey no. 48 of Nanakramguda} village, Serilingampalli^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal,arbitrary,} unconstitutional and without lurisdiction.

¶25

.A. NO: 1 2012 WPMP. NO: 1551 OF²⁰¹²

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} issue^{interim directions to the respondenis no. 4 and 5 not to executeany further} document^of any nature^{in favour of anybodyrelating to the land in survey no.4Q} of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy district,pending} disposal of the Writ Petition

¶27

.A. NO: 2 O 012 WPMP. NO: 1552 OF 2012

¶28

Petition under Section^{151 CPC piaying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} issue interim directions suspending^{thei registration of lease and conveyance} deeds bearing^{documentno 20560/2006 and 2056212006both dated 28-12-} 2005 on^the file^{of the seventh respondent, pendingdisposal of the writ Petition.}

¶29

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2012^(WPMP. NO:^1553OF2 0 121

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC^pr,aying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to} issue^{interim directions not to give any effect to the lease deed dated 21-1-2010}

¶31

executed by the fifth respondent rn favour of the sixth respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petitron

¶32

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 1554 OF 20121

¶33

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 issue interim directions to the first respondent not to take into account the regisiered lease and conveyance deeds bearing document no.20560/2006 and 2056212006 both dated 2-12-2oas executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent, as also the lease'deed dated 21-1-2010 executed by the fifth respondent in favour of the sixfti respondent, while disposing off lhe representations dated 24-11-2008 and 6-5-2009 made by the petitioner for denotification of his land in survey no. 48 of Nanakramguda village, serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. CHANDRASEN REDDY, REPRESENTING M/S. CHAI{DRASEN LAW OFFICES

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 7: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Snt f-. pnaeHAKAR REDDY, S,C. FOR TSI|C Counsel for the Respondent No.5: --

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: STANDING COUNSEL FOR TSTRANSCO

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.8 & 9: SRI p. RAVICHARAN FOR M/s. L|NK LEGAL

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO: 1294 OF 2012

¶40

Between:

¶41

sooraram-Pratap Reddy s/o late s.Kista Reddy (Died per LRs of petitioner Nos. 6 to 9)

¶42

Sooraram Dasharath Reddy,_S/o {ate S.Kista Reddy, aged 59 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. House No. i-13

¶43

Sooraram Sayamma W/o. late Venkat Reddy, aged 60 years, Occ: Household

¶44

Sooraram Srinivas Reddy S/o -late -S Venkat Reddy, aged 2g years, Occ: Agriculture R/o_ house No. 1 - t 3/1 of Nanakramquda' Villige -"iir,ng;rplili Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶45

¶46

Suraram Satyamma alias Sathamma Wio.Late Suraram Ram Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No.2-7-Nanakramguda, Serilingampally - 500008, Ranga Reddy District.

¶47

Petitioner No. 5 is impleaded as per, Court Order dated 1610212022 in l.A. No. 1 of 2021

¶48

6 Suraram Rajender Reddy S/o. Late Suraram Pratap Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ Business, R/o H. No 1-52111142, Bhavanipuram Colony. Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶49

7 Suraram Lokender Reddy S/o. Late Suraram Pratap Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ Business, R/o H. No. 1:52111142, Bhavanipuram Colony, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶50

B Suraram Chenna Reddy S/o. Late Suraram Pratap Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Qcc Business, R/o H. No. 1-52111142, Bhavanipuram Colony, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶51

I Suraram Bhagyamma W/o. Late $uraram Pratap Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H. No. 1 -52 I 1 I 1 42, Bhavanipuram Colony, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad. :'

¶52

Petitioner Nos.6 tq 9 brought on record as LRs of the deceased^'1st Petitioner' as^per Court Order dated^151612023 in LA. No.¹ of 2023

¶53

...PETITIONERS

¶54

AND

¶55

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶56

The Diskict Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad.

¶57

The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (lndustries) Hyderabad.

¶58

The Andhra Pradesh lndustrial 'lnfrastructure Corporation, Parishrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director.

¶59

Emaar Properties Private Limited, Gachibowli, Hyderabad represented by its Managing Director.

¶60

AP Transco, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Represented by its Managing Director.

¶61

The District Registrar (Stamps & Registration), Ranga Reddy District at Balanagar, Hyderabad

¶62

B. M/s Qoulder Hills Leisure Private , Limited, Having its registered Office at Boulder Hills, Golf and Country Club, ManikonOi Vittag6, Rajendranagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

¶63

Respondent No.B is impleaded as per Court Order dated 1610212022 in l.A. Nos.1 of 2020 &2of 2O21

¶64

...RESPONDENTS

¶65

Petition under Article 226 of the p.onstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanees stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Wrii of Mandamus setting aside the registration of lease and conveyance deeds bearing

¶66

I I

¶67

document No.20s60/2006 and 2os62l2obo ootr dated 28-12-2005 on the fite of the seventh respondent, by declaring the action of the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 of the diversification of the acquired land in survey No.4g of Nanakramguda village' serilingampaili Mandar, Rangar Reddy District, as ifiegar, arbitrary, u nconstitution a I and without jurisdiction.

¶68

l.A. NO:l Ot,2012(WpMp. NO: 1610 OF 2012t

¶69

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to issue interim directions to the first respondent not to take into account the registered lease and conveyance deeds, bearing document No.20560/2006 and 2Q56212006 both dated 2B-12-2OOS exequted by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent, while disposing off the representation daled 2-1_z}iZ made by the petitioners for de-notification of their land in survey No.4g of Nanakramguda vilrage, Seriringampaili Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition :

¶70

t.A. NO:2 OF 2012{WPMP. NO: 1611 0F 2012

¶71

Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitrcin, the High court may be pleased to issue interim directions suspending the registration of rease and conveyance deeds bearing document No.20560i2006 and 20s62t2006 both dated 28-12-200s on the file of the seventh respondent, pen'ding disposal of the writ petition.

¶72

.A NO: 3 OF 2012 WPMP. NO: 1612 OF 012

¶73

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petittn, the High court may be preased to issue^interirp directions to the respondents No.4 and 5 not to execute any further document of qny nature in favour of anybddy relating to the land in survey No.4g of Nanakramquda virrage, seriringampaili, Mandar, Ranga Reddy District. pendang disposal of the Writ Petition. :

lA NO: 3 OF 2021

Between:

M/s. Boulder Hills Leisure. Private Limited, Having its registered office at Boulder Hills, Golf and countrv crub, Manikonda Viilagei Ralen?ranagar- Hrrinorr, ning, Reddv District

¶78

AND

¶79

....pETrrroNER/pRoposED RESpoNDENT No.8

¶80

Sooraram Pratap Reddy

¶81

Sooraram Dasharath Reddy

¶82

Sooraram Sayamma

¶83

Sooraram Srinivas Reddy

¶84

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶85

The Government of Andhra pradesh (presently Government of relanoana) lepresented^{by its Secretary. Revdnue} lLdnd Acquisitionj OepJim#i ..

¶86

Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶87

The Diskict Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶88

The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (lndustries) Hyderabad.

¶89

8 Ihg Andhra Pradesh rndustrial, lnfrastructure corporation (presentrv Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporafiont,^{'F;;Gi,;;rd'Bi,-r;;:} trasneerDagn, Hyderabad rep. by rts'Vice chairman and Managing Director.

¶90

M/s. Emaar Prooertres^private Limited, Gachibowli, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Direct6r.

¶91

10 Ll,.Jl11-.^o_,lP^rlgentlV Telangana Transco), Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Rep. oy rrs Managtng utrector.

¶92

11.The District Reoistrar (Stamps & Registration), Ranga Reddy District at Balanagar, Hydeiabad.

¶93

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS No.1 to 7

¶94

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 permit the Petitioner to file the material papers/material documents i.e. registered Deed of conveyance bearing document no. 20561 of 20o6 and registered Lease Deed bearing document no. 20562 of 2006 on record as additional material papers in the interest of justice.

¶95

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VIVEK JAIN

¶96

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.,l to 3 & 7: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL counsel for the Respondent No.4: sRr L. PRABHAKAR REDDY, s.c. FoR TSilc

¶97

¶98

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: -

¶99

counsel for the Respondent No.6: STANDING COUNSEL FOR TSTRANSCO

¶100

Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI P.,RAVICHARAN FOR

¶101

M/s. LINK LEGAL

¶102

I WRIT PETITION NO: 6577 OF 2012

¶103

Between:

¶104

'1. Sooraram Pratap Reddy S/o. Late S.Kista Reddy- Died per LRs of Petitioner Nos. 5 to 7.

¶105

Sgoraram Dasharath Reddy S/o. Liate S.Kasta Reddy, aged 59 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o House No. 1-13, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, R.R.District.

¶106

3 Sooraram Sayamma^{W/o. Late Venkat Reddy, ag} ed 60 years, Occ: Househsld, R/o House No.1-13, . Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, R.R.District

¶107

Sooraram Srinivas Reddy S/o. Late S.Venkat Reddy. aged 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o House No 1^- 13/1 Nanakramguda Vrllage, Serilingampallr Mandat. R.R.District.

¶108

Sooraram Dasharath Reddy S/o. Late S. Kista Reddy, Aged 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. House No. 1-13,, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District.

¶109

Sooraram Sayamma Wo. Late Vent<at ReOdy, Aged 71 years, Occ: House hold Rlo Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District.

¶110

Sooraram Srinivag Reddy S/o Late'S. Venkat Reddy, Aged 39 years, Occ: tAgriculture, R/o. House^No. 1-13, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R R. District.

¶111

Petitioners 5 to⁷ brought on record as LRs of the deceased 1't Petitioner as per Courl Order dated 15.06 2023 in I A. No 1 ol 2023

¶112

...PETITIONERS

¶113

AND

¶114

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secietariat, Hyderabad.

¶115

Tle District Cqllector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad.

¶116

The Spgcial Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (lndustries) Hyderabad.

¶117

The Andhra Pradesh lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation, Parishrama Bhavari,^{-Bahseerbagh,} Hyderabad: Represented by its Vice Chairman &

¶118

Emaar Properties Private Limited, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Represented by its Managing Director j

¶119

A.P.TRANSCO, Khairatabad, Hyderabad represented by its Managing Director

¶120

The District Registrar (Stamps &^' Registration), Ranga Reddy District at Salanagar,^Hyderabad.

¶121

¶122

The Central Bureau of lnvestigation, represented by its Director, Andhra Pradesh. at Kothi. Hyderabad

¶123

The Director General, (Vigilance & Enforcement) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶124

10 M/s. Boulder Hrlls Leisure Private .Limited Having its registered office at Boulder Hills Golf and Country Club, Opp. Indlan School of Business Manikonda Village, Gachibowli Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶125

1 1. M/s. Emaar Hills Township Privatd Limited Having its registered office at qoulder Hills Golf and Country Club, Opp. lndian Schoot of Business, Manikonda Village. Gachibowli Hyderabad, Telangana Stale.

¶126

Respondent Nos. 10 and 1 1 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 2009.?023 in l.A.No.1 and2of 2022 respectively.

¶127

...RESPONDENTS

¶128

¶129

(a) declaring that the diversification of ihe severed land in survey no. 49 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District falling to the east of the outer ring road in favour bf the sixth respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutiona I and without jurisdiction, by holding that the said land stands reverted to the petitioner.

¶130

(b) settlng aside the award dated 30-11-2005 in fite no.Bt245l2000 on the fite of the third rqspondent, by deleting the. severed land in survey no. 4g of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the eastern side of the outer ring road, and to re-conduct award enquiry and to pass award afresh, and affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard,

¶131

(c) interim directions to the respondents no. 1 to 6 neither to change lhe nature of the severed land on the eastern side of ring road in survey no.4g of Nanakramguda Village, serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District nor to allot it to anybody, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶132

Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated '15.03.2012 in W.p.M.p.No.g932 of 2012

¶133

¶134

l.A. NO: I OF^{2012(WPMP. NO:8349OF 2012)}

¶135

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the Hlgh Court may be pleasedto} issue interim^{directionsto the respondentsno. 1 to 6 neitherto changethe nature} oftheseveredlandontheeasternsj.deofringroadinsurveyno.49of Nanakramguda^{Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districtnor to allot} it to^{anybody, pending disposal of the writ} Petition'

¶136

Prayer is amended^{as per court order dpted 15.032012 in w.P.M.P.No.8932of} 2012

¶137

Ceunsel for the^{Petitioners:SRIVIVEK JAIN}

¶138

CounselfortheRespondentNos.lto3,T&9:THEADVOCATEGENERAL CounselfortheRespondentNo.4:SRIL.PRABHAKARREDDY,S'C'FORTSIIC

¶139

Counsel for the^{ResPondent No.S:} -

¶140

CounselfortheRespondentNo.6:STANDINGcouNSELFoRTSTRANSCo

¶141

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.8:SRIT. SRUJAN KUMARREDDY'} s.c. FoR C.B.l.

¶142

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.10 & 11:, SRI P' RAVICHARANFOR} M/s. LINK LEGAL

¶143

Counsel^{for the Respondent:SRI PALLE SRINIVASAREDDY}

¶144

WRIT PET ITION^{NO:6501o-F 2012}

¶145

Between:

¶146

AL Sadanandam^{s/o. A.Llngaiah, aged 54 years, occ:Agriculture, R/o. Flat No.402,} L;G; R;tid;Cy^{Sour,an" tolonv, WestIMbrredpallv,Secunderabad...pETtTtoNER}

¶147

AND

¶148

The Government^{of AndhraPradesi'r, represented} .by.its^{Secretary' Revenue} ' (f-anO Acquisition) Department' Secretariat, Hyderabad'

¶149

The District Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District at Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad.}

¶150

3.TheSpecialDeputyColtector,LandAcquisition(lndustries)Hyderabad.

¶151

¶152

4 The Andhra Pradesh lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation, Parishrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad through its Vice Chairman and Managing Director.

¶153

5 Emaar Properties Private Limited, Ggchibowli, Hyderabad represented by its Managing Director.

¶154

A.P.TRANSCO Khairatabad, Hyderabad represented by its Managing Director.

¶155

The District Registrar (Stamps and Registration), Ranga Reddy District at Balanagar. Hyderabad.

¶156

The Central Bureau of lnvestigation, represented by its Director, Andhra Pradesh at Kothi. Hyderabad.

¶157

9 The Director General (Vigilance & Enforcement), Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad

¶158

10 M/s Emaar Hills Township Private Limited Having its reqrstered office at Boulder Hills Golf and Country Club, Opp. lndiin Sch5ol of Business Manikonda Village, Gachibowli Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶159

1 1. M/s. Boulder Hills Leisure Private Limited Having its registered office at Boulder Hills Golf and Country Qlub, Opp. lndian School of Business, Manikonda Village, Gachibowli Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶160

Respondent Nos. 10 and 1 1 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 20.09.2023 in l.A.No. 1 and 2 ot 2022,respectively

¶161

...RESPONDENTS

¶162

Petition under Article 226 of 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 order/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus (a) declaring that the diversification of the severed land in survey no. 48 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingamfalli Mandat, Ranga Reddy District falting to the east of the outer ring road in favour,of the sixth respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstatutional and without jurisdiction, by holding that the said land stands reverted to the petitioner.

¶163

(b) setting aside the award dated 30-11-2005 in file no.8/24512000 on the file of the^{third respondent, by} deleting the area of 1 acre 3 guntas which is already part of the award bearing no. 0412006 in file iro.LA/UniI.V/ORR/08/2006 dated 27-052006, and the severed land falling to the:dastern side of the outer ring road, and to re-conduct award enquiry, and to pass award afresh after deducting the said extent, and affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard,

¶164

¶165

(c) interim directions to the respondents no. 1 to 6 neither to^{change the nature of} the severed land in survey no.48 of^{NanakramgudaVillage,Serilingampalli} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District nor to allot^it to^{anybody, pending disposalof the} writ petition. :

¶166

Prayer is amended as^per Court Order dated^{15.03.2012in W.P.M.P.No.B933of} 2012

¶167

l.A. NO: 1OF 2012^(WPMP. NO i 8252cF²⁰¹²¹

¶168

Petition under Section^'151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court may be pleasedto} issue interim directions to the^{responden$ no. 1 to 6 neitherto changethe nature} of the severed land in survey no. 48 of Nanakramguda^{Village,Serilingampalli} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District nor to allot^it to^{anybody, pending disposal of the} writ petition.

¶169

Prayer is amended as^per Court^{Orderdated 15.03.2012in W.P M.P.No.B933 of} 2012

¶170

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VIVEK JAIN

¶171

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3,⁷ & 9:^{THE ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶172

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI L. PRABHAKAR^{REDDY, S.C. FOR TSIIC} Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: - ;.

¶173

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: STANDING^{COUNSELFOR TSTRANSCO}

¶174

Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI T. SRUJAN^KUMARREDDY, s.c. FoR c.B.l.

¶175

Counsel for the Respondent No.10 & 11: SRI P.^{RAVICHARANFOR} M/s. LINK LEGAL

¶176

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI PALLE SRINIVASA^REDDY

¶177

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶178

¶179

¶180

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶181

WRIT PETITION No.1245 OF 2012 WRIT PETITION No.1294 of 2O12 WRIT PETITION No. 6577 of 2012 AND WRIT PETITION No. 65O1 of 2O12

¶182

COMMON ORDER:

¶183

Heard learned senior designate counsel Sri B Chandrasen Reddy, representing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and learned standing counsel Mr, L. Prabhakar Reddy appearing on behalf of TSIIC Respondent No.4 and learned counsel Mr. P. Ravicharan, Link Legal Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.8, learned Advocate Genera! appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7.

¶184

2. The oetitioner aooroached the court in W.P.No,

¶185

No.1245 of 2O12 seekino oraver as under:

¶186

"to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the registration of lease and conveyance deeds bearing document no. 20560/2005 and 20562/2005 both dated 28-12-2005 on the file of the seventh respondent, by declaring the action of the respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 of the diversification of the acquired land in survey no. 48

¶187

¶188

of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction; and be pleased to pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble couft may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶189

3. The petitioners aooroached the court in W.P.No.

¶190

No.1294 of 2OL2 seekinq Draver as under:

¶191

"to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the registration of lease and conveyance deeds bearing document no. 20560/2006 and 20562/2006 both dated 28-12-2005 on the file of the seventh respondent, by declaring the action of the respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 of the diversification of the acquired land in survey no. 49 of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction; and be pleased to pass such other order/s as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.{'

¶192

4. The oetitioners approached the court in W.P.No.

¶193

No,6577 of 2OL2 seekinq Draver as under:

¶194

"a) declaring that the diversification of the severed land in survey no.49 of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district falling to the east of the outer ring road in favour of the sixth respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction, by holding that the said Iand stands reverted to the petitioner.

¶195

b) setting aside the award dated 30-11-2005^{in file no.} 8/245/2000 on the file of the third respondent,^by deleting the severed land in Survey^No.49of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal,^Ranga Reddy district to the eastern side of the outer ring road, and to re-conduct award enquiry, and to^{pass award} afresh, and affording an opportunity to^{the petitionersof} being heard."

¶196

5, The oetitioner approached the court in^W.P.No.

¶197

No.65O1 of 2O12 seekinq Drayer as under:

¶198

"(a) declaring that the diversification of the severed land in survey no.48 of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district falling^to the east of the outer ring road in favour of the^sixth respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitution^{a I} and without^{jurisdiction,} by holding that the said^land stands reverted to the^petitioner.

¶199

(b) setting aside the award dated 30-11-2005 in file no. B/245/2OjO on the file of the third respondent, by deleting the area of 1 acre 3^guntas which is already part of the award bearing no.0412006 in file no.LAIUnit.V/ORR/08/2006 dated 27-5-2006, and the severed land falling to the eastern side of the outer ring road, and to re-conduct award enquiry, and to^pass award afresh after deducting the said extent,^and affording an opportunity to the^petitioner of being hea rd. "

¶200

PERUSED T E RECORD

¶201

6 The case of the Petitioner A.L. Sa anandamⁱⁿ W.P.No.1245l2O12 and W.P.No.65O1/2O12 in brief^as oer the averments made in the affidavits^{filed by the}

¶202

¶203

Petitioner in s uDDort of the said two^(O2) writ Detitaons is as under :

¶204

i. The Writ Petitioner i.e., A.L.Sadanandam in W.P.No.t245/20t2 who is also writ petitioner in W.P.No.6501/2012is the owner of Iand admeasuring Ac.J,4.2S gts., in Sy.No.48 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which had been notified for acquisition for public purpose i.€., for developing into integrated projects by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, Section a(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was Gazetted on 17.07.2002 and Draft Declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was Gazetted on lB.O7.2OO2, invoking the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The same was questioned by the Petitioner in W.P.No.19560 of 2002 and this Court by order dated 04.11.2004 set aside the urgency clause while sustaining the Section 4(1) Notification and directed for conduct of Section 5-A enquiry. Even though Section 5-A enquiry was held the same was without any notice to the Petitioner without there being any valid enquiry and draft declaratlon under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was

¶205

¶206

published on 27.04.2005 and the same was questioned by the Petitioner by filing W.P.No.11619 of 2005 and the same was dismissed by the Court on 25.10.2005 and the matter landed before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No.2902 of 2006. The said SLP along with connected Appeals preferred by other private land holders of the adjoining lands was heard and disposed of vide common^judgment rendered by the Supreme Court on O5.09.2OO8 which was reported in (2OO8) 9 SCC 552. But when the very purpose of acquisition proceedings which was intended initially for establishing and developing infrastructure project was not proceeded with in respect of the Petitioner's subject land, petitioner made an application dated 24.11.2008 before the Government to denotify the land from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act but when there was no response to the said application of the petitioner, petitioner filed W.P.No.26787 of 2OOB and the same was disposed of by the order dated 06.04.2009 directing the Government to consider and dispose oF Petitioner's representation dated 24.tt.2008 within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Petitioner filed an application dated 06.05.2009 before the Government enclosing the copy of the order dated

¶207

¶208

¶209

06.04.2009 passed in W.P.No.26787 of 2008 and the Petitioner also gave an application to the Chief Minister on 13.11.2010, when a third party was trying to make construction in the Petitioner's subject land, Petitioner filed W.P.No.33229 of 2OLL and sought a direction to the 1't Respondent to de-notify land admeasuring Ac.9.00 in Sy.No.4B of Nanakramguda Village lying on eastern side of the express Highway Road leading to the outer ring road because of the severance or in the alternative direct the 1't Respondent to consider and dispose off the application filed by the Petitioner in accordance to the order dated 06.04.2009 passed in W.P.No.267B7 of 2008. The said W.P.No.33229/201,1 was disposed of at the admission stage directing the 1't Respondent to consider Petitioner's application in accordance with the .order dated06.04.2009 passed in W.P.No.26787 of 2008 within a period of two (02) months.

¶210

ii. It is further the case of the Petitioner that when the 6th Respondent was digging Petitioner's land, Petitioner filed Suit in O.S.No.87B of 2011 on the file of 1't Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and sought for interim

¶211

¶212

injunction order in I.A.No.2723 of 2011 and onlv throuoh the documents filed bv the 6s^{Respondentbeforethe} Court it came to the knowl^{doe of the Petitionerthat a} a r' land whi h notified for acouisition r the ourDose f the 4tr Respond nt had been vide^D eed of^{Convevace dated} 28.L2.200 5 transferred in favour of the^{5h Respondent.} iii) It is further the case of the^{Petitionerthat the 4th} Respondent had executed a Registered Sale^Deed and^also Registered Deeds of Conveyance on 28.12.2005^vide Document Nos.20560/2005 and 20562/2005, but^the registration of both the documents had^been done only^on 12.10.2006. When the Petitioner came to^knowthat Petitioner's acquired land was sought to be diversified by^the beneficiary of the acquisition i.e., the 5th^{Respondent in favour} of the 6th Respondent by executing a^{LeaseDeed dated} 2L.OL.2OLO on a mere stamp duty of^{Rs.100/-and without} any registration, the Petitioner^{was constrainedtofile} W.P.No.1245 of 2012 seeking a writ of^{mandamus setting} aside the registration of lease and^{conveyance deeds bearing} Doc.No.2056O/2006 and 20562/2006 both dated^28.12.2005

¶213

¶214

on the file of the 7th Respondent by declaring the action of the Respondents No.4, 5 and 6 of the diversification of the acquired land in Sy.No.4B of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further the specific case of the Petitioner that no notice was given to the Petitioner prior to passing of the Award and the Petitioner came to know about the passing of the Award in respect of Petitioner's subject lands only when the matter was referred to the Civil Court in O.P.No.969 of 2010 which is presently pending on the file of II Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶215

iv) The petitioner A.L.Sadanandam in W.P.No.L245/2012 also filed W.P.No.6501 of 2012 declaring the diversification of severed land in Sy.No.48 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, falling to the east of the outer ring road in favour of the 6th Respondent as illegal and to set aside the Award dated 30.11.2005 in File No.B/245/2000 on the file of the 3'd Respondent, by deleting the area of One acre three guntas which is already part of the Award bearing No.0412006 in File No.LAlUnit.V/ORR/0812006 dated 27.05.2006 and the severed land falling to the eastern

¶216

¶217

side oF the outer ring road and to^{re-conduct Award enquiry} and to pass Award afresh after deducting the^said extent^and affording an opportunity to the Petitioner of being^heard.

¶218

The case of the Petitioners in W.P.No.1294/2OL2 as per the averments made by the Petitionersⁱⁿ support of the present Writ Petition^is as under^:

¶219

i) Petitioners are agriculturists owning land in Sy.No.49 admeasuring Ac.7.36^gts., situated at^{Nanakramguda Village,} Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District being^co- percenary property of Petitioners and they had been cultivating the land, and agriculture had been^{the onlysource} of their livelihood. The Petitioner's subject^{land had been} notified for acquisition by the APIIC on the^ground of^public purpose for setting up of new projects and notification U/s.4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act was^{gazetted on} 17.07.2002 followed by Sec.6(1) of the^{Land Acquisition Act} which was gazetted on 18.07.2002 by^invoking the^urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry^U/s.5-A of^{the Land} Acquisition Act, Petitioners^questioned the said^proceedings but by retaining Sec.4(1) Notification urgency clause^was struck down by the Court directing Sec. 5-A enquiry. The said

¶220

¶221

enquiry was colourable and agaln a Notification under 6(i) of Land Acquisition Act was published on 27.04.2005. The Petitioners however did not hear anything about an Award Enquiry or passing of an Order. The Petitioners had not been paid any compensation and no Notice had been issued to the Petitioners to deliver possession of the acquired land.

¶222

ii) It is further the case of the Petitioners that assailing the fresh Notification U/s.6(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued on 27.04.2005, the Petitioners had filed Writ Petition before this Court and the same was dismissed against which Petitioners preferred SLP (C) No.2239 of 2006 before the Supreme Court. The said Appeal was heard along with other similar cases filed questioning the very same Notification and after hearing of the parties the Supreme Court had dismissed all the Civil Appeals and the said Judgment was reported in 2008 (9) SCC 532. On 02.01.2012 the Petitioners had filed an application before the 1tt Respondent to withdraw the above said land from acquisition and to issue a Notification to that effect Uls.4B(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the 6th Respondent tried to encroach a

¶223

¶224

portion of the Petitioners land by constructing a compound wall.

¶225

iii) It is further the case of the Petitioners that though the Petitioners initially filed a suit in O.S.No.9/2Ot2 on the file of Ist Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and sought for interim injunction order, subsequently, however on 18.01.2012 Petitioners filed a Memo seeking to withdraw suit O.S.No.9/2012 on the file of Ist Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. It is only when the 6th Respondent appeared and filed a Counter on 03.01.2012 in Suit O.S.No.B7a/20fi fned by the owner, A.L. Sadanandam,^pertaining to landⁱⁿ Sy.No.78 of Nanakramguda Village who had been similarly effected and who had sought for interim orders in 1.A.No.2723/2011 it came to light for the first time that Petitioners land is being diversified as it is no more required for the public purpose originally notified for the sake of^5th Respondent.

¶226

(iv) It is further the case of the Petitioners that a Registered Lease Deed bearing Document No.20560/2006 and^a Registered Conveyance Deed bearing Document

¶227

¶228

No.20562/2006 are said to have been^{executedby the 4th} Respondent i.e., APIIC Corporation in^favour of^the5th Respondent on 28.12.2005 and the same^{had been presented} for registration on 12.10.2006. The said documents are^very vague in so far as Petitioners lands are concerned as it is^not stated with any^precision as to how^{much area is coveredby} the lease deed and how much under the^{conveyancedeed.} U/s.23 of the Indian Registration Act,^{1908 any documentfor} registration shall be presented within 4 months of^its execution but in the instant case it^was after^{10 months of its} execution and even as per Sec.25 of the Indian^Registration Act, condonation could be only for a further^period of⁴ months in addition to the original^period of 4 months^and hence there is no^jurisdiction to register the^aforesaid documents beyond 28.08. 2006.

¶229

(v) It is further the soecific case of the Petitioners +lirl. + h lan^A a I erifir nr r rn td^lra rrt ti z nrr rn ca anlrr r n d it arnnat ha adf ^r +ha crid d ivers ified in resoect of anv other ouroose. I view of

¶230

lha f^{i^+} ilr-1 ariainrl nrrh ti a nr rrrrnca f 1r ir ht ho Petitioners subject land had been notified having^been

¶231

¶232

diversified it is contended bv the Petitioners that the Petitioners are entitled for the relief as praved for in the o resent writ oetition. Hence W.P.No.1 294/2OL2 had been filed bv the Petitioners there under.

¶233

The very same petitioners in W.P,No.1294 of 2OL2 filed W.P.No.6577 of 2O12 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the diversification of severed land in Sy.No.49 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, falling to the east of the outer ring road in favour of the 6th Respondent as illegal and to set aside the Award dated 30.11.2005 in File No.B/245/2OOO on the file of the 3'd Respondent, by deleting the severed land in Sy.No.49 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the eastern side of the outer ring road and to re-conduct Award enquiry and to pass Award afresh after deducting the said extent and affording an opportunity to the Petitioners on being heard.

¶234

9 The Counter affidavit has been filed bv the Soecial Deoutv Collector, Land Acouisition I nd u stries, Hvderabad,^present Industries/I.A.P., Ranqa Reddv

¶235

¶236

District, in W.P.No. 1245 of 2O12 and the^relevant

¶237

paragraph No.9, reads as under

¶238

Para 9 : It is further submitted that regarding^issuing of notification Uls 4(L) and declaration U/s 6^{of the Act,} and about the Court cases, has already been^discussed In above^paras. The^petitioner herein^{should have filed} any claim and objection before the^L.A.O. at^{the timeoF} publication of notification and declaration and also at the time of award enquiry but as seen from^{the award} no such claim was filed before the then L.A.O.^That after passing the award on 30-11-2005 in the S.L.P.^(Civil) No2902 of 2006 the status^quo orders stated to^have been issued on 10-2-2006, in^respect of^{possession, but} the^possession of the land was already^{taken before the} above date. That the Civil Appeal No.5512 of^2008and batch stated to were disposed by the^{Hon'bleSupreme} Court which was reported in 2008(9)SCC 552.^{But the} petitioner herein has not mentioned about the orders passed in these cases. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the cases as "The action of^{the statein} initiating acquisition^proceedings for establishing^and developing infrastructure^project cannot be^held contrary to law or objectionable. The High^Courtwas, therefore, right in dismissing the writ^{petitions and also} writ appeals and we find no infirmity therein^and therefore all the appeals are^liable to^{be dismissed and} are accordingly dismissed".

¶239

¶240

Par 11 It is respectfully submitted^{that the} petitioner herein stated that he^has filed^{an application} before the Government^{on 24-lI-2008 to de-notify the} land from acquisition under^{section 48(1) of the L.A.Act,} but there was no^{response from the Governmenthe} filed W.P.No.26787 of 2008^{before this Hon'ble Court,} and the same was disposed^{on 6-4-2009 while directing} the Government to^{consider and disposeoffhis} representation dated: 24-ll-2008^{within a period of} four weeks for the date of^{receiptof the said order. The} petitioner stated that he has filed^petition on^6-5-2009 and also on 13-11-2010^{before the Hon'ble Chief} Minister. In this regard it^{is submitted that once the} possession of the lands acquired has been^{taken over by} the Government, there is no^{provision to de-notifythe} land. The section 48 of the^{L'A. Act, speaksthat} "(l)Except in the case^provided for in^{section 36, the} Government shatt be at^{liberty to withdrawfrom the} acquisition of any^{land of which possessionhas not been} taken". ln thi s case the^DOSSeSStO of the a U i red lands have alreadv been taken^{over as such the} Gove rnment annot de- notifv the lan as reouested bv him.

¶241

Para 12 : It is further submitted^{that in respect of the} subject land the same^is attracted^{by the provisions of} Urban Land^(Ceiling &^{Regulation) Act, 1976,as such it} was referred to the Civil Court U/s 30 of^{the L.A. Act} and compensation was deposited^{before the Court U/s}

¶242

¶243

¶244

30 & 31^{of the Act, and said case was numberedas} O.P.No.969/2010,^{and ispendingbefore the IInd} AdditionalDistrictJudge,RangaReddyDistrict'as admitted by^{the petitioner herein in these paras' The} petitioner is at liberty^{to file relevant documentsbefore} the above^{Civil Courtand claimthe compensation' As} the^{petitioner has not filed any claim petitionat the time} of award^{enquiry' The petitioner is at liberty to file} petition before^{this respondentand obtainthe certified} copy of the^{Award' That the contentionof the petitioner} thatheisunawareoftheaward'butasevidentfrom theavermentsmadeintheseparasthepetitioneriswell aware^{of the passingthe award' referring the matterto} Civil Court^{and O'P' numberand also the quantum of} compensation^{amountto Rs'73'00 lakhs'}

¶245

n 2 2 2 AP IC Te n n f or to r d b n r r No 1 e a f

¶246

Para 6 : It^{is submitted that the allegationthereis} frustration^{of public purpose in view of the alignmentof} outer ring^{road resulting split of Sy No' 48 into two} pieces and Ac 9-00^{out of Sy'no' 48 falling to the} eastern^{side of the road leaving small extent of Ac' l-00}

¶247

¶248

in compact block etc., are totally vague, incorrect and untenable and unsustainable.

¶249

Para 12 : It is submitted that the alleoation that the acouisition is for one ourpose and after aatt uisit ral n thc a?attt raA lr nrl aartnr'rt ha diversified for anv other uroose is also vaque and incorrect alleqation invented bv the oetitioner for the ouroose of filino this Writ Petition. Once the land is acouired under the provisions of L.A. Act and after oassinq the award bv L.A.O.. the acquired !and vests with the Government, who is free to utilize the acquired land for anv oublic puroose. Constructions of electric sub- station cannot be found fault bv the writ oetitioner.

¶250

Para 13 : It is submitted that the allegation that fraud has been played by the respondents to deprive the petitioner from making the payment of compensation and facilitating unjust enrichment etc., under the^guise of acquisition of more than Ac. 500-00 of land, CBI investigation and prosecution of officials which are incorrect and the same is concerned to the other respondents and the petitioner is called upon to put to strict proof of the same.

¶251

Para 15 : It is submitted that the acquisition of the lands by 4th respondent Corporation is not with any malafide purpose. As per the policy of the Government

¶252

¶253

and in the interest of^{developmentofindustries,} projects, tourism in the State for^{developmentof} integrated^{projects, gulf courts, townships, hotels under} private partnership/joint venture it^{has become} inevitable for acquiring^{surroundinglandsof Hyderabad'} As a matter of fact, the^{developmentworks have been} taken up in the lands^{and variousactivitieshave taken} place including Convention Centre,^{BusinessHotels,} Township Projects, Gulf^{Course etc. Thus the acquisition} of the lands areⁱⁿ the^{larger interest of public and also} as per the^policy oF the^{Government.Thus the} acquisition of the^{lands cannot be found fault by the} petitioners, though the same are^{compulsoryin nature'} Already when the land^{acquisitionfor public purposeis} upheld by the Hon'ble^{SupremeCourt.Hence,the} present writ petition is not maintalnable.

¶254

The counter affidavi w .P. No-129 4of 2rJt2 APIIC-^D se ntlv Telanoa na State Industrial rnfrastructure^{Corootation. Basheerbagh'} n rti he V 4

¶255

L4. 16, read^{as followS:}

¶256

Para 4 : It is submitted^{that the writ petition as filed} by the^petitioners to^{set aside Registration of Lease and} Conveyance Deeds^{bearing documentNo. 20560of} 2006 and 20562 of^{2006 both dated 28-12-2005 and for} declaration of diversification^{of the acquired land in}

¶257

¶258

Sy.o.49 of Nanakramguda^{village, Sherllingampally} mandal, Ranga Reddy^{districtis not maintainable in law.}

¶259

Para 9: It is submitted^{that in pursuance of the} requisition of the then^{APIIC,proposalswere initiated} for acquisition of^{Ac. 541-00in a compactblock by the} revenue authorities and^{initiated proceedingsof} acquisition and the^{award has been madein respect of} Ac.77-02 Gts. of^{patta land underLand Acquisition Act.} It is submitted that^{Governmentof Andhra Pradesh} granted exemption from^payment of stamp^{duty and} registration for^{conveyancedeeds and lease deeds,} payment of transfer duty and thereafter^{respondentNo.} 4 herein executed^{Registered Deed of conveyanceand} lease deeds in favour of^{Respondent Nos. 7 and B.} Therefore, the allegation that the^{documentswere} executed without exemption^{ofstamp duty and} registration and^{powersto exempt the same will not} stand to the legal^{scrutiny etc., are totally untenable.As} per the policy of the Government the^{saiddocuments} were executed by^{respondentNo. 4 as statedsupra,} which is in Public^interest.

¶260

Para 14 : It^is submitted^{that a policy decision was} taken by the Government^{to develop the Stateby} providing physical and social infrastructure^{by attracting} and facilitating^{private investmentin infrastructure.As} per the said policy decision the^{Andhra Pradesh} Infrastructure Development^{Enabling Act, 2001 (Act 36}

¶261

¶262

of 200 1) has been^{enacted. The main object of the said} Act, is to^provide rapid^{developmentof physicaland} social inFrastructure^{in the State and attract private} sector^{participation} in designing,^{financing. construction,} operation and maintenance^{of infrastructureprojects'} The Government also^{prepared a documentas early as} in the year 1990 called^{"Vision -2000document"} highlighting need for^{Tourism as an importantfactor} and initiated constructive^{developmentof projects from} the year 2000-2001.

¶263

Par 16 : It is submitted that the^{acquisition of the} lands by 4th respondent^{Corporationis not with any} malafide^purpose. As^{per the policyof the Government} and in the interest of^{developmentof industries,} projects, tourism in the State for development^of integrated^{projects, gulf courts, townships, hotelsunder} private partnership/joint venture it^{has become} inevitable for acquiring^{surroundlands of Hyderabad'As} a matter of fact, the^{developmentworks have been} taken up and various^{developed projects have comeup} including Convention Centre,^{Business Hotels, Township} Projects, Gulf Course etc.^{Thus the acquisitionoF the} lands are in the larger^{interestof peopleand also as per} the policy of the Government'^{Thus the acquisitionof} the lands cannot be^{found fault by the petitioners,} though the same are^{compulsory in nature.}

¶264

¶265

L2. Count r affidavit fil dbvS^{s Resoondet i.e. M/s.} Boulde Hills Leisure Private Limit d in^{W.P.No.294 of} 2012, ara Nos. 14, 15. 19. 25 and 27 reads^as llows

¶266

"14. It is further submitted that in terms^{oF the} Memorandum of Understanding^{and Collaboration} Agreement, the then APIIC^{transferredland} admeasuring 258.36 acres^{comprised in Sy. Nos. 210(P)} & 211(P) of Manikonda^{Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal,} Sy. No. 91(P) of Gachibowli^{Village, Serillingampally} Mandal, Sy. Nos. 4 to 26(P),27^{(4) to 35(P), 37,38,} 40, 4!, 43 to 46(P) 47,^{48(P) and 49(P) of} Nanakramguda, Serilingampally^Mandal to^EHTPLi.e. Respondent No. 9 vide^{Registered ConveyanceDeed} dated 28.12.2005. It^{is further submitted that similarly} the then APIIC has also^{leased land admeasurlng 235} acres situated in survey^{numbers 210(P)211 (P) of} Manikonda village,^gl(P) of^{Gachibowlivillage and} survey numbers 6 to 11,^{L9 to 24 (P),37,38,40,4L,} 47 to 49(P) of Nanakramguda village,^{Serilingampally} Mandal to BHLPL i.e. Respondent^{No.8 herein vide} Registered Lease Deed dated^{28.12.2005.The copy of} the Lease Deed dated 28.12.20t5^{is annexed herewith} as Annexure No. 5.

¶267

The Answering Respondent^{submitsthat, APIIC has} handed over the^{physicalpossessionof the lands} admeasuring 531.98 acres^{in (Sy No.203(P),210 (P) &} 211(P) of Manikonda^(V), Rajendranagar^{(M), Sy. No.}

¶268

¶269

9L/P ot Gachibowli Village and Sy. No. 36, 37,38,39, 40, 42 and 47 of Nanakramguda (V), Serilingampally (M), Sy No. 4 to 26,27/4 to 35, 43 to 46, 48 and 49 of Nanakramguda (V), Serilingampalty^(M) Ranga Reddy District to EHTPL and BHLPL i.e Respondent No.8 vide possession certiFicate dated 18.06.2005 and 29.tL.2005. The copies of^possession certificates dated 18.06.2005 and 29.LL.2005 are annexed herewith as Annexure No.6(Colly). Since then, the EHTPL and the Answering Respondent have been in the lawful possession of lands and the said factum is well known to the public at large and is within the^public domain.

¶270

The Answering Respondent submits that the original landowners had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of various Special Leave Petitions viz. SLP (C) No. 113s of 2006, SLP (C) No. 2239 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 3387 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 33BB of 2006, SLP (C) No. 3389 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 3390 of^2006, SLP (C) No. 2902 of 2006, which were heard together and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its^common judgment dated 05.09.2008, has dismissed the said petitions and upheld the acquisition of lands in question. The writ petitioners having admitted about the filing of Special Leave Petitions have cleverly stated that what^is being agitated is a totally different cause of action and filed the present petition giving it the colour of diversification which is nothing but abuse of^process of

¶271

¶272

law. On this^{ground alone, the present Writ Petition is} liable to be dismissed.

¶273

In reply to^{the averments made in Paras 4 and 5 of} the affidavit under^{reply, AnsweringRespondent} submits that the^{Hon'ble Supreme Court as reportedin} 2OOB(9) SCC 552^{has upheld the action of the Statein} initiating acquisltion^{proceedings for establishing and} developing infrastructure^{project cannot be held} contrary to law or^{objectionable. The High Court was,} therefore, right^{in dismissingthe writ petitionsas also} writ appeals and we find^{no infirmitytherein.All the} appeals, therefore, are^{liable to be dismissedandare} accordingly dismissed,^{however, leaving the partiesto} bear their own costs.^{The copy of judgementpassedby} Hon'ble Supreme Court^{in Civil AppealNo.5512/2008} dated 05.09.2008 is^{annexed herewithas Annexure} No.B. Therefore, it is^{crystalclear that Petitioners} though being fully aware^{about the land acquisition} proceedings having been initiated^{during the period of} 2002-2005^{(including upholding of the acquisition of} lands by the Hon'ble Supreme^{Court as publicpurpose),} taking over of the^{possessionof lands way back in the} year 2005 and^passing of award^{has filed the present} petition frivolously with^{regards to the subjectlands,} suppressing the^{material facts for wrongfulgains.}

¶274

In reply to the^{averments made in Para 7 of the} affidavit under^{reply,the AnsweringRespondentdenies}

¶275

¶276

the same as false and the Petitioners is put to strict proof of the same. The Answerinq Respondent submits that the^possession of lands in^question was taken lono back i.e. in the vear 2OO5 after passing of the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As mentioned above, the then APIIC acquired the subject lands and consequently transferred the same to the Answering Respondent through a Registered Lease Deed dated 28.12.2005 and it has already attained finality and has been in public domain since 2005. It is settled position in law that after passing the award, and taking possession under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not used for the purpose of which it is acquired, the original land owner/land looser does not have any right to seek for re-vesting the land in him and to seek for restitution of the possession. The present writ petition is nothing but an after-thought and an abuse of process of law in order to deprive the Answering Respondent of its legal and lawful rights accrued to it under the said registered lease deed over the subject lands.

¶277

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of 9th Respondent

¶278

in W.P.No.1294 of 2OL2 and in particular, para Nos. 27,

¶279

28,29, and 33 reads as under :

¶280

¶281

"27. In respect^{of avermentsmade in Para 1 of the} affidavit^{under reply, it is respectfullysubmitted that the} Petitioners^{have no locus standi to file present writ} petition as the^{lands in questionare the propertiesof} the Answering^{Respondentwhich were validlyacquired} under the^{provisionsof the Land AcquisitionAct' 1894} by the^{then Governmentof AndhraPradeshthroughthe} then APIIC^{and conveyedthe same to Answering} Respondent^{vide registered conveyancedeeddated} 28.|2.2oo5.Allchallengestotheacquisitionprocess have been^{completedand rejected by the Courts' A} second^{round of litigation on the decided issues is not} permissible.

¶282

In^{reply to the averments made in Para 2 of the} affidavit^{under reply,the AnsweringRespondent denies} thesameasfalseforwantofknowledge'Itissubmitted that the^{APIIChas transferred land admeasuring 258'36} acres^{videregistered} conveyance^{deed dated} 28.12.2005^{in favour of} Answering^{ResPondentand} since then^{the Answering Respondentis in the lawful} possession of^{the said lands'} 29. In reply^{to the averments made in Para 3 of the} affidavit^{under reply, the Answering Respondent} submits^{that the contentsof the paragraphunderreply} in so far^{being a matter of record needs no reply' The} Answering^{Respondent deniesthat that the Petitioners} have not^{heard anything about the award enquiry or} passing of award^{and the Petitioners are put to strict} proof the same.^{The Answering Respondent further}

¶283

¶284

denies that that the Petitioners have^{not been paidany} compensation and that no notice was issued for delivery of^possession of the acquired land and the^Petitioners are put to strict^proof of the same. In fact, an Award bearing B/245l2OOO dated 30.12.2OO5 was oassed by Special Deouty Collector.^Land Acouisition (Industries), Hvderabad wherein !and admeasurin Ac.7.36 ountas in survev number 49 were acouired for the inteorated oroiect.

¶285

In reply to the averments made in Para B of the affidavit under reply, the Answering Respondent denies the same as false and the Petitioner is^put to strict^proof of the same. The Answering Respondent further submits that it is also a settled^principle of law that after^passing of award, taking of^possession and delivery of said^land to the beneficiary, the retention of the^possession by the Petitioner is far from truth and such^possession ii any would tantamount to unlawful.

¶286

L4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 4ft Resoondent i W.P.No.6577 of 2OL2, an in oarticular,

¶287

oara Nos. 11 . 13. and 15 read a foil^o ws:

¶288

"11. It is submitted that Government of Andhra Pradesh in their Memo No. 13268/LA/2/96-1 Revenue (LA) Dept. dated 04-06-1996 has accorded permission to the District Collector to acquire land for^{APIIC Ltd.} even belongs to small and marginal farmers.^The

¶289

¶290

Executive Director^(Estate) APIIC Ltd., in his^{letter No.} 27L1A3/Lands/APIIC/2000 dated 1B-11-2000^{has fileda} requisition before the District Collector,^{R.R. Districtto} acquire the lands in Sy.Nos.4 to 35, 4t,43^{lo 46,48} and 49 extent of Ac. 92.19 Gts.^{for developmentof new} projects and requested to invoke urgency clause under LA under LA Act as the above lands are^urgently required by the APIIC Ltd. The above^{proposalswere} forwarded by the District Collector, R.R. District^vide letter No.GU71B0l00 dated 07-12-2O0O with an instructions to the Special Deputy Collector,^{LA (Inds.)} Hyderabad to initiate land acquisition^{proceedingsas} per LA Act and send DN and DD proposals duly invoking urgency clause under LA Act. Accordingly,^{LA process} were initiated invoking the urgency clause.

¶291

It is submitted that the allegation against^the corporation with regard to the^{negligenceand collusion,} failed to safeguard the interest of the State and^its subject etc., vague and incorrect. The^further allegations are not related to this^{respondent,and the} petitioners are called upon to put to strict proof of the same. The allegation that there^is a^{rank discrimination} causing loss to the^persons like^{petitionersand wrongful} gain to the 5th respondent is also vague and incorrect. It is submitted that the^payment of compensation^{etc., are} totally under the^provisions of^{Land AcquisitionAct and} as^per the award of Land Acguisition^Officer. It^{is always} open to the aggrieved^persons for taking steps^for

¶292

¶293

enhancement oF compensation under the^{provisions of} Land Acquisition Act, in the event of dissatisfaction about the compensation amount. The^remaining allegations are not related to this^{respondent,and the} petitioners are called upon to put to strict proof of the same.

¶294

It is submitted that a^policy decision was taken by the Government to develop the State^bv providino phvsical and social infrastructure by attractino and facilitatino^private investmentⁱⁿ infractrrr .^latr As^{ncr fhacrid nniicw rlarcian flra} Andhra Pr desh Infrastructure evelooment Enablinq Act. 2OO1^(Act 35 of 2OO1) has been enacted. Th maln obiect of the sa d Act. is to provide rapid development of phvsical and social infrastructu in the State and a ract Dravate sector^{particioation} in desiqninq, financinq. con struction ooeration and mai tenance of infrastructure^projects. The Government also oreDared a document as earlv as in t e vear 1990 called "Visio 2OOO document" hiqhl iohtino need for Tourism as an imoortant factor and initiated cnn cfrr r irra r{arro .tnr?t e i aif rrr^iaatc fro tha vear 2OOO-2O01.

¶295

The Petitioner A.L. Sadanandam filed reply affidavit in W.P.No.1245 ol 2Ot2, and in^{particular,para} Nos. 22, 24,26,27, and 28 read as under^:

¶296

¶297

"22. It is submitted that fraud has been played by the Respondents to deprive the^petitioner and his family members of due compensation while facilitating unjust enrichment of the respondents. Under the^guise of acquisition, more than 500 acres of^government land which is worth thousands of crores of rupees have been allotted for a farthing in favour of the fifth respondent, and the share of the fourth respondent which was originally 260/o is now reduced to 57o. Even a modest estimate by the Central Bureau of Investigation^(CBI) of the wrongful loss to the fourth respondent caused by the agents of the fifth respondent is to the tune of^Rs 108 crores, while thousands of crores of rupees have been^pocketed by the said^persons by selling the^plots at the market value which is now not less than^Rs 2,5O,OOO/- per sq, yard. Even according to the CBI, the fifth respondent and its agents have sold the^plots several times beyond the official^price, and even the official^price @ Rs 5,000/-^per sq.^yard comes to Rs 2.5 crores per acre while the^price of only Rs 5 lakhs^per acre is being offered to the^petitioner. The CBI^has prosecuted the officials and the private individuals in connection with the Emaar Properties, and the prosecution is pending in the CBI court at Hyderabad. While for a total land of 10 acres 25^guntas I am being offered Rs 54 lakhs towards market^price, the fifth respondent is fetching the same^price for a mere extent of 200 sq. yards. There cannot be any^greaterfraud than this, and this itself is sufficient to nullify all the

¶298

¶299

acquisition^{proceedingsand the subsequentacts. It is} not out of^place to mention^{that at a remote place as} compared to my land^{in question,the Hyderabad Urban} Development Authority^{(HUDA) has fetched Rs 14} crores per acre for land in^{Kokapet village in the open} auction conducted by it^{in the year2006.}

¶300

It is submitted that^{Respondent no.4 has playeda} key role in transferring the^{land to Respondentnos. 5} and 6 and cannot^{now claim that it is not concerned} with the land. It is submitted^{that respondentno. 6 is} relying on lease deed dated 2l/0ll2ol0^executedby respondent no. 5. Respondent^{no. 5 is in turn relyingon} the registered lease deed^{and deeds of conveyance on} 28/12/2OO5 vide document^{nos. 20560/2005 and} 20562/2005 which was^{executed by Respondentno.4. It} is submitted that the registration^{for deeds of} conveyance document nos.^{20560/2005and} 20562/2005 dated 28/L2/2005^{executed by Respondent} no.4 in favour of Respondent^{no.5 was done on} t2/L012006 which is^{contrarY to} section 23 of the Indi n Reo istration^A 1908 which stiD I ates that docume t execu has to be Dresent d for reqistration within 4^{months from date of} r document has been^{presentedfor registration} after 1O months from the^{date of execution.} Moreso, under section 25 of^{the Indian Registration Act,} 1908 even if the Registrar^{has to condone the delay}

¶301

which has not been done in the instant case, the registering authority cannot condone the delay beyond a period of B months. As such, registration of both documents is illegal, void and non-est in law.

¶302

In reply to para 12 it is submitted that the Petitioner is not aware of the award being^passed with respect to his land nor of the contents of the award. The Petitioner has not received any notice to deliver^possession, neither has possession been taken from him in accordance with the^provisions of the l-A Act, 1894 nor has he participated in the award enquiry. Such usurpation of land by the authorities does not amount to dispossession as mandatory^provisions of the LA Act, 1894 have not been followed and without following mandatory^provisions, no authority can claim valid title or possession.

¶303

The allegation that the requisitioning department is not concerned with any allotment or development in respect to matters concerned with other departments is untenable especially when Respondent no.4 has^played a key role in transferring the land to Respondent nos. 5 and 6. It is pertinent to mention that the^government throughout the^proceedings has stated that smaller extents of private lands were notified for developing integrated projects consisting of Emaar Hills Township Pvt Ltd even though larger extents of^government lands were available to maintain a compact block. When the

¶304

¶305

t c t b u f r t e ur DO e f EVelo^{inqa nl} t ratedto nshi D a d th p rDos o a inte^{qratedtownshDI sas} h n t r r electricitY^substation'

¶306

However,^{pending the above WP when H'M'D'A'} proposed to^{lay a 30 m wideroad as per the revised} road development^{plan from ORR serviceroadto} Khajaguda^{lake via Urdu Universitythrough the} petitioner's^{property approximately admeasuring Ac' 9'} 14^{guntas gts in sy' no' 48 situated at Nanakramguda} village,^{SherilingampallyMandal' RangaReddy District'} which^is the^{subject matter of the present writ petition'} The^{petitioner filedobjectionson 22107 12021" and was} compelled^{to file writ petition 17268of 2021 challenging} the^{proposed road' Pending the said writ petitionHMDA} officials^{have approachedthe petitionersand both have} enteredintoanunderstandingbyvirtueofthesame' proceeding^{dated 9'11'2021 were issued' where the} HMDA agreed^{to acquirean extent of 1680'35 sq' yards} of land^{instead of the earlier proposedextent'} Accordingly,^{the writpetition17268/2021was} withdrawn^{as dismissed'Further' the Hon'blecourt} observedthattheEMAARpropertiesareentit|edto agitate^{the settlement reached betweenthe petitioner}

¶307

¶308

¶309

and HMDA officials vide dated^{9.LL.2021. A copy of the} consent letter and^proceedings of the^{GHMC along with} the sketch plan is filed herewith and^given by^{the writ} petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was brought to notice that EMAAR^{propertieshave} filed a writ^petition bearing W.P. No. B|4B/2O22 challenging^the proceedings and the same is^pending. Nevertheless, as^pe r section 24 f The Riqht to Fair Comoen ation and TransDarencv^ln Land Aaarricil &l6 h rlr il ;l.f i t rT .l Elacatlla m 2O13 the land acquisition^{proceedinos gets lagsed} if the ohvsical^possession of the land has^{not been} taken after oassing of award under section¹¹ rrrith i n t rmo i h mm ani nf i he I a ElEl A.t , ,ti ? I^rr+ h Drese nt case. the Dhvsi I and lawful o esst on has not been taken bv th e official^{resDondent from} the oetitioner and also the^{petitionerhas not} taken anv comDensation. As Der the^{oetition er} phvsical^possession was taken earlier bv invokinq the urq encv clause which was set asideinWP L9560/2 OO2. Thereafter, no ohvsical sesston was taken bv officials from the^{petitioner'after} h war n ut agreement executed between the officials^and EMAAR properties is only a sham transaction^and no physical possession was handed over to them at anv^po int in time and the tioner is in phvsical possession as of this date. This is without

¶310

¶311

nrArlt dice frt the rrf her .rnfantia!ns r^alsprl n iha writ affidavit. The^petationer reserves his riqht to file additional re DIV f necessarv.

¶312

Counter affidavi filed bv the 8^u- n.sp-grdcnlBHLPL in W.P.No.1245 of 2O12 and in^{particular,para}

¶313

Nos. 28,3O and 3 1 read as follows^:

¶314

"28. That the urgency clause was set aside by this Hon'ble Court, the Government could not take possession of the notified land and it is not known to us (Petitioner) as to when the award was passed as there was no notice issued to us^(Petitioner) to^participate in the award enquiry and that till this day Petitioner had not been served with any award, is wrong and denied by the answering Respondent.

¶315

In reply to the averments made in^para 9 of the affidavit that till today Petitioner is not aware of the content of the award as it has not been served upon Petitioner and Petitioner have not been paid the compensation and a paltry compensation was awarded and odd is in the court deposit and Petitioner^{has not} received any notice of delivery^possession and no possession has been taken over from Petltioner in accordance with the^provisions of the L.A. Act, the answering Respondent denies the same as false. The answering Respondent further submits that the petitioners on one hand contend that they do not know as to when award was^passed and on the other hand

¶316

¶317

¶318

contend that a^{paltrycompensation was awarded and is} in court deposit.^{From the above, it is crystalclear that} the Petitioner is^{fully aware that an award was passed} and that he has^{made false claim that he is still in} possession of the lands in^{question only with a mala-fide} intention. It^is settled^{position in law that after passing} the award, and taking^{possession under section16 of} the Land Acquisition^{Act, 1894, the acquired land vests} with the Government^{free from all encumbrances. Even} if the land is not^{used for the purpose of which it is} acquired, the land^{owner does not have any right to ask} for re-vesting the^{land in him and to ask for restitution} of the^{possession.The answeringRespondentfurther} submits that it^{is also a settled principle of law that after} passing of award, taking of^{possessionand deliveryof} said land to the^{beneficiary, the retention of the} possession would tantamount^{only to illegalor unlawful} possession.

¶319

In reply to the^{averments made in para 10 of the} affidavit the answering^{Respondentdenies the sameas} false. The answering^{Respondent further submits that} the petitioners claiming^{to be in possessionof the land} which have been^{acquired pursuantto provisions of the} Land Acquisition Act,^{1984 is nothingbut illegaland} unlawful^{possession. Therefore, there is no merit in} the contention of^{the writ petitaonerthat under} law he continues to^{be the legal owner and} oossessors of the^{land and that the ResDondents} have no rioht to interfere^{with the same.}

¶320

¶321

¶322

DISCUSSION^{AND CONCLUSION:}

¶323

L7. re r k n la du der^the ndA cou i s itionA (ori or to aco isiti on and oost acquisition):

¶324

w en ection5A^{enoutrvs disDensedwith} Aco isitionA 18 94 Section L7o^{f theLan} (a) When the urgency^{clause is invokedby the} Land Acquisition^{Officer under Section17 of} the Land^{AcquisitionAct, 1894, there is no} necessity to^{conduct theenquiryunder} Section 5-A^{of the Land Acquisition Act'} L894; Possession^{can be taken under} Sections 17(2)^{and t7(4) ot the LA Act by} dispensing^{with the enquiry to be conducted} as^per Section^{5-A of the LA Act' Section 5-A} ensures that^{the principles of natural justice} are upheld and^{fair opportunityis to be given} to the land^{owners to raise their objections} for acquiring^{their land and the Rules of} natural^{justice have been ingrained in the} scheme of^{Section 5A with a view to ensure} that before^{any person is deprived of his land} by way of^{compulsoryacquisition, he must} get an opportunity^{to opposethe decision of}

¶325

¶326

the State Government^and/orits agencies/instrumentalities^{toacquire the} particutar parcel of land. In the^{present case,} though the Land^{AcquisitionOfficerhad} issued notification under^{Section4 to acquire} the land by invoking^{urgency clauseunder} Section 17 of the^{LA Act, the urgencyclause} was set aside by this^{High Court in W.P. No.} 19560 of 2OO2 and the^{Court directed the} respondents to issue^{notice for an enquiry} under Section 5A ofthe^{LA Act.}

¶327

(b) Further, only when the urgency^clauseis invoked and it is in^{subsistence,the} possession could be taken bY^the Government without^{conducting enquiryas} contemplated under^{Section 5A of the Act} and the award could^{be passed, subsequent} to taking^{possession'In the presentcase,} since the urgency clause^{has been set aside,} the award has to be^{made under Section 11} of the LA Act on 30.11.2005^{and only after} passing of the award, the^{possessaonhas to} be taken under Section^16.

The Land Acquisition Officer should follow the^due procedure contemplated as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Enquiry has to be conducted for the parties whose land is to be acquired after issuing notices to them. The parties objections^(if any) have to be recorded and the award may be^passed and then possession of the land may be taken. The Scheme of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to^paymentoJ compensation is that, the Collector after enquiry as^per Section 11 has to make award and when award^is made, notice has to be issued under Section 12(2).^The Collector must be armed with the amount of compensation payable to interested^persons and only when payment is refused or no^person is competent to atienate the land or there is any dispute as to title, the Collector shall deposit compensation in reference Court. Only after these steps, the Collector shall^take possession of the land which shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances'

¶332

It is the specific case of the Petitioner's in the present Writ Petition that the Petitioners are not aware

¶333

¶334

of the Award being passed with respect to Petitioner's land nor the contents of the Award. The Petitioner's had not received any notice to deliver the^possession nor has the possession been taken from the Petitioner's in accordance to the Provisions of Land Acquisition^Act, 1894. Neither the Petitioner's had^{participated in} the Award enquiry nor had the Petitioner's^received the notice as mandated under Section L2(2) ot the^Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶335

Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation^and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act/ 2013, reads as under^:

¶336

"24. Lan acou s tio n Drocess u nderAct No 1 of 1 894 shall be deemed to have laosed in certain^cases.

¶337

(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition^proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act,^f 894,-(a)where no^award under section 11 of the said Land^{Acquisition Act has} been made, then, all^provisions of this Act^relatingto the determination of compensation shall^apply; or(b)where an award under said section 11^{has been} made, then such^proceedings shall^{continue under the} provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.(2)Notwithstanding^anything contained in sub-section^(1), in case of^{landacquisition} proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section^{11 has} been made five years'or more^prior to^the

¶338

¶339

commencement of this Act but the^{physicalpossession} of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the sald proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the^provisions of this Act:

¶340

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shalt be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

¶341

2L. A bare perusal of the above^provision clearlv indicates that the Land Acquisition proceedinos lapse if the ohvsical oossession of the land has not been taken r tn f the Award un Secti L hi years or more prior to the commencement of the Act No.3O of 2O13. The counter affidavits filed bv the Respondents do not indicate the date when the notice had been issued and served upon the Petitioner informinq the Petitioner to particioate in the Award enquirv and when Notice under Section 12(2) had been issued and served uoon the Petitioner. It is the soecific case of the Petitioner that even as Der the averments made at Para No.28 of the reply affidavit filed in W.P.No.1245 of 2OL2, that as on date^pllrrsical and

¶342

¶343

lawful^possession had not been taken bv the official Respondents from the Petitioner and the Petitioner had naf trlza n A n com at^{ian Tt i<fr rrilrart} h ifi case of the Petitioner that^physical oossession^{has been} taken earlier bv invoking the urgencv clause which was cat rcirla tn W P Nn t clE6O nf ?OO 2 tha raaftar n^a! nhwc ra| noss accinn rerrc takan hrr nffa rle lr th Petitioner aft r Dassino of the Award a d no ohvsical possession was handed over to the Respondents at any point of time and the Petitioner is in^physical oossession of the Petitioner's subject land^as on date.

¶344

The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in fndore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal and Others reported in⁽²⁰²⁰⁾ I SCC 129 at paragraphs 362 and 366 observed as under^:

¶345

"'362. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.^(supra) is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed, are also overruled. ......

¶346

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

¶347

366.1. Under the^provisions of Section 2a(1Xa) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014, the date of commencement oF the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of

¶348

¶349

proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provlsions of the 2013 Act.

¶350

366.2. In case the award has been^passed within^the window period of five^years excluding the^period covered by an interim order of the court,^then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it^has not been repealed.

¶351

366.3. The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as^"and". The deemed lapse of land^acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five^years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words.ⁱⁿ case possession has been taken, comDensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarlv. if compensation has been^{paid, possessionhas} not been taken then there is no lapse.

¶352

366.4. The expression^"paid" in the^{main part} of^Section zaQ) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of^non deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it^has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries^(landowners) as^on the date of notiFication for land acquisition^under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled^to compensation in accordance with the^provisions of^the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been^fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition^proceedings. In case of non deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five^years or more, compensation under^the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notiFication for land acquisition under Section⁴ of the 1894 Act.

¶353

¶354

¶355

366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has Iapsed under Section 24(2) due to nonpayment or non deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

¶356

366.6. The^proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not^part of Section 24(1)(b).

¶357

366.7. The mode of taking^possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing oF inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been^passed on taking^possession under Section 16 oF the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting^provided under Section 24(2) ot the 2013 Act, as once^possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).

¶358

366.8. The^provisions of Section 24(2)^providing for^a deemed lapse of^proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into fdrce, in a^proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 01.01.2014. The^period of subsistence of^interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five^years.

¶359

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not^give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded^proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 01.01.2014. It does not revive stale and time barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to

¶360

¶361

proceedings or^{mode of deoosit of compensation} reopen in the treasury^{instead ofcourt toinvalidate} acquisition."

¶362

neither Possesslon^{of the} In the Present^case subject^{lands had been takennor comPensationPaid'}

¶363

The Constitution^{Bench of the Apex Court in its} recent^{judgment reported in(2O2O) 8 scc129 in} Indore^{DevelopmentAuthority Vs' Manohar Lal and} Others^{opined that complianceof either of the two} conditions^{i.e., taking over of possessionof the land or} payment of^{compensation is good enough to sustain the} acquisition.^{Inthe present case' from the material} available^{on record, it is not evidentand clear that the} possession^{ofland indispute was taken after the} acquisition^{was complete' The counter affidavit filed on} behalf of^{the RespondentNo'3 i'e"Special Deputy} Collector,^{LandAcquisition' Hyderabad'present} Industries/IAP^{RangaReddy District' filedin} W.P.No.124^{5 ot2Ot2 on 22J22022 statesthat the} possession of^{thePetitioner's subject land had been} taken^{over by the Government'however'it does not} give the details^{nor any documents are filed before the}

¶364

¶365

Court evidencing taking over^{possessionof the subject} !ands by way of^panchanama nor any^{report of} possession proceedings had been^placed by the Respondents on record.

¶366

A bare perusal of the counter affidavit^{filed on} behalf of the Andhra Pradesh^{IndustrialInfrastructure} Corporation presently Telangana State^Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Basheerbagh,^Hyderabad, filed on 1O.O2.2O18 in W.P.No.1294 ol^{2012 is also} silent in so far as the^{particulars pertainingto the date} when physical possession of the Petitioner's^subject lands had been taken and^para No' 8 of the^said affidavit only states that the^{allegationthatthe} possession had not been taken from the Petitioners,^is i ncorrect. ft is also surorisinq to note that the^{cou nter} affidavit filed in Februarv^2O18 on oath es that the possession of the subject lands was taken, the material document filed by the Petitioner^{along with reply} affidavit in February 2023 an^{W.P.No,1245 ot 2OL2} refers to letter dated 09.11.2O2L of the Commissioner, GHMC, addressed to the Petitioner herein vide Letter

¶367

¶368

No. 1 3/ KUITPS / CtR- ZO / cH MCl 2O21, which contradicts the same and a bare perusal of the contents of the said letter dated 09.11.2021 in fact call upon the petitioner and request the^petitioner to handover the possession of the subject land. A bare perusal of materiat document dated 1O.11.2021 filed atong with the reply affidavit which in fact is the response of the petitioner in W.P.No.1245 of 2OL2 to the letter dated O9.11.2O21 of the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, indicates that the petitioner,s reply in relation to the request of the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Serilingampalty, Hyderabad, that the petitioner gives his consent to hand over the possession of the subject land bearing Sy.No.4g of Nanakramguda Village. Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring 1680.34 sq. yards for the purpose of widening of the road from Khajaguda Lake to Nanakramguda ORR along Urdu University Compound Wall subject to the condition that all benefits should be r er M dated 28.12.2O17 for the development of the balance

¶369

¶370

land. If that being the^position as on 09.11.2O21, the plea of the 4th Respondent (TSIIC) in W.P.No.1294 of 2O12 that the possession has been taken over way back in February 2018 as borne on record is factually i ncorrect.

¶371

24, A bare^perusal of the contents of the letters dated 09.j!-t.2Q21-aXd_^{l_O.11.2021 referred toabove also} v th rm n tn Resoondent BHLP L at Para Nos. 28, ?n? 1⁾ nd^?er:a far..lrrrllrr r^{l.ar.j satl} i ha nlar aJ +]ra 8^tr Resoonden that oossession of th Petitioners subject lands had been taken over by the Government is false since the said counter affid vit of the^8E Resoondent ad been filed into the Reoistrv in November 2O 15 and the Petitioner was reouested to handover^possession in resoect of the subiect^lands vide letter dated 09.11.2O21. The 8s Resoondent Counter failed to neither orovide anv det ils oertaininq to report of the alleoed^{possessionproceedings nor} anv n h^altatiltl 2 el lha 'lrl.a r^rhan f ]ra nzrliaa had been iss ed to the Petitioner after ssino of the

¶372

¶373

Award under Section 12(2) of Land^{AcquisitionAct.} 1894.

¶374

This court opines that the respondents herein^must complv with the^procedure for acouisition^{and the} respondents herein are^qoverned by the^{rule of law and} cannot arrooate to itself a status^{bevond what as} provid d bv the constitution.

¶375

In the co nter affidavit file bv the 8b Respondent in W.P.No.1294 of 2O12 at^para No. 34 a specific^{plea is} taken contending that the Petitioners are notⁱⁿ possession of the subject land, strangely no report of the oossession oroceedinqs evidencinq the said^{fact is} brouqht on record bv anv of the Resoondentsⁱⁿ anv^of |.ha wrr |- nalili ^6c avr.an+ cft+ tn .l +hrf r'raic noft^ha subiect land is not with the Petitioners.

¶376

In the counter affidavit filed by the 9th^{Respondent i.e.,} Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd., filed in^{March 2022 itis} specifically denied at^para No.29 that the^{Petitioners have not} been^paid any compensation and that^{no noticewas issued for} delivery of^possession of acquired land and the^{Petitioners are} put to strict proof of the same and at para No.33 it is

¶377

¶378

specifically contended that it is settled^principle of law that after passing of Award, taking of^possession and delivery of the said land to the beneficiary, the retention of the possession by the Petitioner is far from truth and such possession if any would tantamount to being unlawful, however, none of the documents filed on behalf of all the Respondents nor the counter affidavits filed on behalf of all the Respondents give sneal fi. .leta it^qande vide n ae pertaining to Petitioner receivino compensation and eyjde-lee__pertatL:ing_to^{Petitione r havi no recei ved the} notice for delivery of oossession of acquired land and the details of the date of takinq of^possession and deliverv of said land to the beneficiary nor evidence of petitioner havinq received the notice nder Section 12(2) of the Land Acouisition Act, 1894. The plea of the respondents that the Aoex Court uoheld the Acquisition of lands in^question and hence, the oresent writ nalitinn ic n^t m^: !n^fa inabl ts^{nnt tan} hla cinra tha n nts idn resort to a procedure prescribed by a statute in the Bresent^{case. This Court opines thatforcible} dispossession of Petitioners of their^{privateproperties}

¶379

Z

¶380

without following due process of law tantamount to violation of Petitioners human rights and also their Constitutional rights under Article 3OO-A of the Constitution of India.

¶381

The Apex Court in the^judgment reported in (2023) Livelaw (SC) 3O2 in its^judgment dated 1L.O4.2O23 in Land and Building Department, through Secretary and Another Vs. Attro Devi & Others at^para 12 observed as under :

¶382

"12. The issue as to what is meant by "possession of the land by the State after its acquisition" has also been considered by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority's case (supra). It is opined therein that after the acquisition oF land and passing of award, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some^person or^police force to retain the^possession and start cultivating on the land till it is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to start residing or physically occupying the same once^process of the acquisition is complete. If after the^process of acquisition is complete and land vest in the State free from all encumbrances with^possession, any^person retaining the land or any reentry made by any^personis nothing else but trespass on the State land. Relevant paragraphs 244, 245 and 256 are extracted below:

¶383

"244. Section 16 of the Act of 1894^provided that possession of land may be taken by the State Government after passing of an award and

¶384

¶385

thereupon land vest free from^{all encumbrances in} the State Government. Similar are^{the provisions} made in the case of urgency^{in Section17(1). The} word "possession" has been used^{in the Act of} 1894, whereas in Section 2aQ)^{ot Act of 2013,} the expression^{"physicalpossession"is used. It is} submitted that drawing of^{panchnamafor taking} over the^{possession is not enough when the actual} physical possession remained with the landowner and Sectio 24(2) resuires actual o^{hvsica l} possession to be taken, not the possession in anv other form. When the State^{has acouired} the land and award as been oass d. land vests in the State Government free^{from all} encumb rances. The a of vestinq of he land in the State is with^{possession, any person} retaining the possession, thereafter,^{has to} be trea ed as tresoass er and has no^{rioht to} l.ir'r Gc ac the^lrn;l whic^{h rracfc} i ri t h6^q+r+a free fro m all encumb^ances,

¶386

The^question which arises^{whetherthereis} any difference between taking^{possession under} the Act of 1894 and the expression^"physical possession" used in Section 24(2). As a matter of fact, what was contemplated under the^{Act of} 1894, by taking the^possession meant^only physical possession of the land. Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013 always amounted to taking over^{physical possession of} the land. When the State Government^acquires land and drawns up a memorandum^{of taking} possession, that amounts to taking the^physical possession of the land. On the large chunk of property or otherwise which is acquired, the Government is not supposed to^{put some other} person or the police force in^possession to^retainit and start cultivating it till the^{land is used by it for} the^purpose for which it has been acquired.^The Government is not supposed to start^{residing or to} physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest^{proceedings for} obtaining^possession thereof.^{Thereafter, if any}

¶387

¶388

further retaining of land or any^{reentry is made on} the land or someone starts^{cultivation on the open} tand or starts residing in the^{outhouse,etc.,is} deemed to be the^{trespasseron land which in} possession of the State. The^{possession of} trespasser always inures^{for the benefit of the real} owner that is the State^{Government in the case.}

¶389

Thus, it is apparent that^{vestinois with} DO ssion a nd the statute has^orovided under Sections 16 and 17^{of the Act of 1894} that once^possession is^{taken,absolute} vesting occurred. ft is an^{indefeasible right} and vesting is with^{possession thereafter'} The vestino specified under Section^{15, takes} place after various steps, such^as, notification under Section 4,^declaration under Section 5, notice^{under Section 9,} award under Section 11^{and then oossession.} The statutory^provision of^vesting of^property absolutely free from all^{encumbrances has to be} accorded full effect.^{Not only the possession vests} in the State but all other^{encumbrancesare also} removed forthwith. The title of^{the landholder} ceases and the state becomes^{the absolute owner} and in^possession of the^{property.Thereafter} there is no control of the^{landownerover the} property. He cannot have any animus to take^the property and to control it. Even if he has^retained the possession or otherwise^{trespassed upon it} after^possession has been taken^{by the State,he} is a trespasser and such^{possessionof trespasser} ensures for his beneFit and on^{behalf of the} owner. "

¶390

In the present case however^{land vests with the} petitioners as on date and there is no^materialon record "to indicate that^{possessionof the petitioners} subject lands had been taken^{over by the Government}

¶391

¶392

and to that effect the contents of the letters dated O9.11.2021 and 10.11.2O21 are self explanatory. It^is pertinent to note that in Section 24(2) of Act of 2O13, 'the ex f ess ton ohvs eal nossess o q rrsed and ertinn UiIr\ rart u =alrrrl nhr;ciar s f/r h6 f rlz66 not the^possession in anv other form.

¶393

This Court lso takes note of the fact that the ourpose for whach the subject land was notified initiallv was diversified for an all tooether different Durpose i.e., for constructi o an electricitv sub-statio The counter affidavit filed bv Resoondent No.4 in^W .P.No.1245 of 2O12 at^paragraoh No.12 simolv^justifies the action of tIejlE^{nespondentin one s} the land is acquired under the orovisions of^Land Acouisition A and after Dassino of the ward bv LAO, the acouired land vests with the Gover nment, who^is free to utilize the acouired land for anv oublic^puroose ra/ *ha -n rtclr r.-+i,r"r aC alaa+ rt +r, cr r b-c+2 ian z.a n rr a+ lra found fault bv the Petitioner,

¶394

This court in the iudqme nt reoorted in^(2O11) 1O SCC 6O8 in Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd.. & Another Vs. G.

ar R a

observed as under :

"36. The next question which merits examination is whether the High Court was^justified in directing restoration of land to respondent^No.1. In^{Mrs. Behroze} Ramyar Batha and others v. Land Acquisition^Officer, the Division Bench of the High Court categorically^held that the exercise undertaken for the acquisition of^land was vitiated due to fraud. The Division Bench^{was also} of the view that the acquisition cannot be^{valid in part} and invalid in other^parts, but did not nullify all^the transfers on the^premise that other writ^{petitions and a} writ appeal involving challenge to the acquisition proceedings were pending In An aiah and others^v. State of Karn ataka and others^(suor ) the same Division Bench specifically adverted to the issue^of A' v lics t af nrrrnaca rnrl halrl th t rrrha f a fha landowners are deprived of their land under the cover of public ourpose and there is diversification of land for a private^purpose, it amounts to fraudulent xercise of the Dower of eminent do arn.

¶400

The^pleadings and documents^filed by the^partiesin these cases clearly show that the Corporation had made a false projection to the State Government that^land was needed for execution of tourism related^projects. In the meeting of officers held on L3.1.L987, i.e. after almost four years of the issue of declaration^under Section 6, the Managing Director of the Corporation candidly admitted that the Corporation did not have^the requisite finances to^pay for the acquisition of land and that Dayananda Pai, who had already entered^into agreements with some of the^landowners for^purchase of land, was prepared to^provide funds subject^to certain conditions including transfer of 12 acres³⁴ guntas land to him for house building project. After B months, the Corporation^passed resolution for transfer of over t2 acres land to Dayananda Pai.^The Corporation also transferred two other^parcels of^{land in} favour of Bangalore International Centre and^M/s.

¶401

¶402

Universal Resorts Limited. These transactions reveal the true design of the officers of the Corporation, who first succeeded in persuading the State Government to acquire huge chunk of land for a public^purpose and then transferred major^portion of the acquired land to private individual and corporate entities by citing poor financial health of the Corporation as the cause for doing so.

¶403

The Courts have repeatedly held that in exercise of its power of eminent domain, the State can compulsorily acquire land of the^{privatepersons} but this^proposition cannot be over-stretched to legitimize a^patently illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken for depriving the landowners of their constitutional right to^property with a view to favour^{privatepersons.} It needs no emphasis that if land is to be acquired for a company, the State Government and the company is bound to comply with the mandate of the^provisions contained in Part VII of the Act. Therefore, the Corporation did not have the jurisdiction to transFer the land acquired for a public purpose to the companies and thereby allow them to bypass the provisions of Part VII. The diversification of the purpose for which land was acquired under Section 4(1) read with Section 6 clearly amounted to a fraud on the^power oF eminent domain. This is^precisely what the High Court has held in the^judgment under appeal and we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the same more so because in Annaia.h and others v. State of Karnataka and others (supra), the High Court had quashed the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 in their entirety and that^judgment has become final.

¶404

The^judgment in Om Parkash v. Union of India (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Shri Naganand is clearly distinguishable. What has been held in that case is that quashing of the acquisition proceedings would ensure to the benefit of only those who had approached the Court within reasonable time and not to those who remained silent. In this case, respondent No.1 independently questioned the acquisition proceedings and transfer of the acquired

¶405

¶406

land to M/s. Universal^{Resorts Ltd. In otherwords,he} approached the^{High Court for vindicationof his right} and succeeded^{in convincing the Division Benchthat the} action taken by the^{Corporationto transfer his land to} M/s. Universai Resorts^{Limited was whollyillegal,} arbitrary and unjustified.

¶407

In the resul^{t.theaooealsaredismised.} N so, fulfil h s oblio^{ation i} terms of the^{lmDuq ned} ret rnofl and to^{resDo ndentNo.1 within ne} 8 weeks."

¶408

This Court as observed^{by the Aoex Court in its} s t h n t h Collector is oblioated^{to hold an enouirv on certain} relevant asoects includinq^{the obiections submitted bv} the inte re d oer ns and Dass a Award conce^rnrnq (a) the exact area of the^{acouiredland' (b) the} com oensati nasm vbede^termin under the Act^(c) n f id e n n the oersons known^{or believed to be interested in the} land, The very object^{of issuino the notice under the} Act is to^qive a fair^{and reasonable ooportunity to the} interested oersons to^{submittheir claim with respect to} the comoensation^{for theacouired land'such}

¶409

¶410

n a ron ca m n h srs f factors that mav be relevant in th context of acouisition and the interested oersons are further entitled to make a statement before the Collector, whereuoon the Collector is oblioated to h ld an enouirv on the obiect ons submitted bv the inte ed oersons and^pass an Award. For a fair and iust determination of compensation within the statutory scheme of the Act, it is imperative that a fair ooportunity of hearing is^given to the persons whose riqhts are affected. This^requires tlrrt th^{a int} raclaA narcfr n rc at tvFn ,rt affarf irra oDDOrtUnitv tO out-forth his or her claim. Anv deviation h scri be wh nitha seeminqlv eff ed the interested^person would militate with the verv obiect of th leoislative mandate. This nrared r r re rdm tlatl h^ed no^{f haarr} falla n lha present case and there has been a diversification of ition e s I rivate totallv un ustified

¶411

3O. The Apex Court in its recent iudqment dated O7.O8.2023 reported in^(2O23) Livelaw^(SC) 632 in M/s.

¶412

¶413

Tirupati Develooers Vs, The Union Territorv of^Dadra and Naqar Haveli & Others. set aside the award^oassed on the^q und that fair oo rtunitv of hearin had not been given to the claimant and the Award dated o4.o5.2020 0 ssed in resoect of the ac uired land of the ADDellant there under was set aside tooether with the imougned^judqment and the order of the^{High Court} and the Collector was directed to issue fresh notice to the Aooellant under Section 21 of the 2O 13 Act. within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of f h rrlar r n fr rr+lrar *ha Dacnan Aon} I C ,illa7.f^.. +hara under was di rected to consider the obiections if anv within the stipulated period and the Collector shall thereafter hear the Apoellant's representative and oass award afresh after conductino enouirv in accordance with the scheme of 2013 Act with a clear stipulation that the Collector shall oass the Award as earlv as naccilrla hrrt ,a+ rfa r f ha ri fhraa /6?\ nr rrf h fro^{rri f} h date of receiot of th e coDv of the order.

¶414

This Court opines that the above referred verdict apolies in^principle to the facts of the Dresent case^as well.

¶415

¶416

The Apex Court in the^{judgment reportedin} Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar^Vs. State^{of Gujaratreported} in (1995) Suppl.^{(1) SCC} 595^{at para No.48 observed} as under :

¶417

Para 48 : In other words, Article^3OO-A only^limits the powers of the State that^{no person shal! be} deprived of his^property save by^{authorityof law.} There has to be no deprivation^wathoutany sanction of law. Deprivation^{by any other mode is} not acquisition or taking^{possession underArticle} 3OO-A. In other words, if there^{is no law, there is} no deprivation.

¶418

The right to^{property is now considered to be not} only a constitutional or a statutory^{right, but also a} human right, though it is^not a^{basic feature of the} Constitution or a Fundamental^{Right. Human Rights are} considered to be in^{realm of individual rights,such as} the right to health, the right^{to livelihood,the right to} shelter and employment, etc',^{now however human} rights are gaining an ever^{greater multifaceted} dimension. The right to^{property is consideredvery} much to be a^part of such new dimension'^(Lachman Dass vs. Jagat Ram, 2OO7^{(10) SCC 448, Amarjith Singh}

¶419

¶420

vs. State of Punjab 2010⁽¹⁰⁾ SCC 43, State^{of M.P. vs.} Narmada Bachao Andolan ZOLL^{(7) SCC} 639, State^of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar, 2011⁽¹⁰⁾ SCC 4O4,^Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of U.P.,^{2011 (9)} scc 3s4).

¶421

The Apex Court in the^judgment reportedⁱⁿ (2013) 1 SCC 353 in Tukaram Kana Joshi^Vs. Maharastra Industrial Development Corporation at^para 8 observed as under :

¶422

"The Apex court held that the claimants were deprived of immovable^property in L964,^{when Article} 31 of the Constitution was still intact and the right^to property was a part of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. It is^pertinent to note that^even after the right to^property ceased to be a^fundamental right, taking possession of or acquiring the^property of the citizen most certainly tantamount to deprivation^and cr rrh rlan rivatio ca^{n i;ta} nllaa n nl tn^sarttrtlatte o to 'law', as the said word as specificallv beino used in Article 3OO-A of the Constitution.^Such deprivation can onlL be by resortino to^a nrncadrr nracrrilrarl hrr r ci=trrla T cannot be done by way of exclusive float or order or administration caprice.

¶423

¶424

It rs settled law^{whena statute} desc ri bes or ul hin o do n h a r A) (M.Shankara^{Reddy Vs' Amara Ramakoteswara} Rao reported^{in (2017) SCC Online Hyd 426)'}

¶425

B) Th Division Bench of^{AoexCou rtin itsiudqm ent} dated O4.10.2021^{in SupertechLtd" Vs' Emerald Court} ner esidentW lfare Asso ratlo and O rs., reoo ed tn 202 scc Onli ne 34 2, referring^{to TaylorVs.} Taylor, 1875^{(1)Ch D426,} Nazir Ahmed Vs.^King Emperor reported^{in (1936)L'R'63 Ind Ap372 and} Parbhani Transport^{Co-operative SocietyLtd'' Vs' The} Regional Transport^{Authority, Aurangabad &Ors''} reported in^{AIR 1960SC 8O1 at para No'13 observed as} under:

¶426

"It is that^{where a power is given to do a certain} thing in a^{certain way,the thing must be done in that} way or not at^{all and that other methods of performance} are necessarily^{forbidden. Hence when astatute} requires a^{particular thing to be done in a particular} manner, it must^{be done in that manner or not at all} and other methods^{of performance are necessarily}

¶427

¶428

¶429

forbidden. This Court too,^{has adopted this maxim.This} rule provides that an expressly^{laid down modeof doing} something necessarily^{implies a prohibition on doing it} in any other way.

¶430

In so far as the^{plea of delay is concerned as} raised by the Respondents,^{this Court opines that delay} and laches is one of the^{facets to deny exercise of} discretion. It is not an^{absoluteimpediment'There can} be mitigating factors.^{Continuity of cause of action etc',} that apart if the^{whole thing shocks the judicial} conscience, this Court^{opines that the Court should} necessarily exercise its^{discretion.This Court opines} that the^present writ^{petition is not hit by the doctrine} of delay and laches^{since the cause ofactionis} continuous and^{further the situation certainly shocks} judicial conscience, since plea of^{physical possessionof} the subject lands having^{been taken over by the} Respondent Authorityⁱⁿ the^{counter affidavits filed on} oath before this Court on^{behalf of the Respondentsis} unsupported by any evidence^{and is in fact contrary to} the contents in the letters^{dated 09.11.2021 and} LO.LL.}OZL. In the^{presentcase, this Court opines that}

¶431

¶432

the Petitioners are entitled for the reiief as^prayedfor in the present writ petition.

¶433

The Apex Court in the iudoment reDorted^{in 2022} SCC Ontine SC 232 in Sunil Kumar Rai & Others^Vs. Clr+a.r fB ihrr P- hlharc A>JaA )1 n) )n)) al Dr r 7 a 1O, an 11 observed as u nd er

¶434

Para 7: Article 32 of the Constitution^provides for a Fundamental Right to approach the Supreme Court^for enforcement of the Fundamental^Rights. The^founding fathers contemplated that the very right to approach this Court when there is a violation of Fundamental Rights, should be declared as beyond the reach of Parliament and, therefore, it is as a^part of^judicial review that the right under Article 32 has been^{put in} place and invoked from time to time. That in a^given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a^petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a^part of^self- restraint which is exercised by the Court having^regard to various considerations which are^germane to^the interest of^justice as also the appropriateness of^the Court to interfere in a^{particularcase. The right under} Article 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right and it is always open to a^{person complainingof} violation of Fundamental Rights to approach this^Court' This is, no doubt, subject to the^power of the^{Court to} relegate the party to other^proceedings.

¶435

¶436

Para 8 : At the heart of the Constitution^{lies certain} principles which have, in fact, been recognised as^part of the basic structure. Article 14 of the^Constitution proclaims right to equality. The right against unfair State action is^part of Article 14. Unequals^beingtreated equally is tabooed under Article 14 of the^{Constitution.} A person entitled to be treated as a^{member of} Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, cannot be^{treated on} par with a person who is brought in by an incompetent Body, viz., the State in the manner done.^Article 21^oF the Constitution again is the fountain head of^many rights which are part of the^grand mandate^whichhas been from time to time unravelled by this Couft^giving rise to the theory of unenumerated rights under the Constitution. While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights,^the irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty,^is freedom from unjustifiable custody.

¶437

We may take up the first^preliminary objection by the State, namely, that the^petitioners have approached this Court with considerable delay. The^impugned Notification is issued in August, 2016. A^person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the Court^may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a^law or

¶438

¶439

order on the basis that he^{may have no locus standi or} that he is not an aggrieved^{person. No doubt, the} Courts have recognized challenge^{to even a legislation} at the hands of a^{public interest litigant. However,we} may only indicate, ordinarily,^{the Court may insist on a} cause of action and therefore, a^{personmust be an} aggrieved party to maintain^{a challenge. We must not} be oblivious to the^fact that^{based on the Notification,it} appears that FIRs came to^{be lodged by persons} claiming to be members of^{the ScheduledTribe} community and seeking^{to invoke the 1989 Act. The} FIRs lodged in the^{year 2020occasionedthe petitioners} to approach Courts seeking^{protectionunder Section} 438 of the Cr.P.C. Two of^{the petitionershavenot} secured such^{protection. PetitionerNo' 1, it appearswas} not arrested. But even^{assuming for a moment,that the} petitioners have come with some delay,^{we find} reassurance from the opinion of^{this Court in the} judgment reported in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha^v. Union of India⁽²⁰¹⁵⁾ 3^{SCC l,wherein this Court has} inter alia held as follows:-

¶440

".....Further, in Olga Tellis^v. Bombay Municipa! Corpn., it^{has now been} conclusively held that all fundamental^riqhts cannot be waived^(at oara^{29). Given these} important developments in the^{law, the time} has come for this Court to sav^{that at least} when it comes to violations of^the fundamental rioht to life and^oersonal libertv. delav or laches by itself^withoutmore would not be sufficient to^{shut the doors of} the court on anY oetitioner."

¶441

¶442

T r we t e h ro w wo h t de av bv itself^{cannot beusedsaweaDotoVeto} an action under^{Article 32 when violation of} Fundamental^{Riohts is clearlyat stake'}

¶443

Section^{12 of the Act does not prescribe any} particular form of^{the notice'Section 45 of the Act} prescribes the manner^{of service of any of the notices} under the^{Act and the same reads as under:-}

¶444

Service of^{notices (1) Serviceof any notice} under this^{Act shall be made by deliveringor tendering} a copy thereof^{signed in the case of a notice under} section 4, by the^{oFficer thereln mentioned,and' in the} case of any other^{notice,by or by order of the Collector} or the Judge.

¶445

(2) Whenever it may^{be practicable,the service of the} notice shall^{be madeon the person therein named'}

¶446

(3) When such^{person cannot be found,the service may} be made on any^{adult malemember of his family} residing with^{him; and if no such adult male member} can be found, the^{noticemay be served by fixing the} copy on the outer^{door of the house in which the person} therein named^{ordinarily dwells or carries on business'} or by fixing^{a copy thereof in some conspicuous placein} the office of^{the officeraforesaidor oF the Collectoror in}

¶447

¶448

the court-house,^{and also in some conspicuous part of} the land to^{be acquired:}

¶449

Provided that if^{the Collectoror ludge shall so} direct, a notice^{may be sent by post, in a letter} addressed to^{the person namedtherein at his last} known residence,^{address 'or place of businessand} [registered^{under section 28 and 29 of the Indian Post} Office Act,^{1B9B (6 of 1898)1, and service of it maybe} proved by the^{productionof, the addresseesreceipt.''} Sub-section^{(1) of Section45 of the Act statesthat} service of any^{notice underthe Act shall be madeby} delivering or^{tendering a signedcopy thereof'Sub-} section^{(2) says that whenever it may be practicable'} the service^{shall be madeon the person namedtherein'} Sub-section^{(3) says that when the person named} cannot be^{found, the service may be madeon any adult} member of^{his familyresiding with him and if no such} adult member^{can be found,the notice may be served} by affixing a^{copy on the outer door of the house in} which the^{personthereinnamedordinarilyresidesor} carries on^{business or by affixing a copy thereofat} some conspicuous^{place in the office of the Collectoror} in the court-house^{as the case may be and also in some} conspicuous^{part of the land to be acquired'Proviso to} sub-section^{(3) of section 45 states that the Collector or} a Judge^{may direct that the noticemay be sent by post} in a letter addressed^{to the person namedtherein at his} tast known^{residence, address,or place of business by} post is to be made^{by a registered post'Bare perusalof}

¶450

¶451

¶452

Section 45^{would show that a notice is required to be} served, when^{practicable,on the personto whomthe} notice is issued.^{Whenthe person is not found, the} service may^{be made on any other male member of his} family residing with^{him. The servicecannot be made on} a female member^{whether adult or minorof the family'} In the^present case^{admittedly the notice was not} served on the^{petitioners nor was it servedon any adult} member in Petitioner's^familY. This Court o^lnes

¶453

Petitioners in the^{affidavit filed in suDDort of the} wn oetiti ns wit reoa to no serv r of notice under Section 12(2),^{the Counter affidavit filed bv} the respondents^{does not answer the samenor} was issued to the oetitioners^{and served uoonthe} itioners.

¶454

iti r d 22 20 8 k Ratra and n other Vs. StateofHi achal Pradesh^and r nt 2 2 scc 69 in idva D vi Vs. State^o f^{Himachal Pra} esh ob rved s und er:-

¶455

"12.9. In a democratic^{polity governed by the rule of} law, the State could^{not have deprived a citizenof their} property without the sanction of^{law. Reliance is placed} on ihe^{judgment of this Court in TukaramKana loshi v'}

¶456

¶457

MIDC [Tukaram Kana ]oshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) l SCC (Civ) 4911 wherein it was held that the State must comply with the^procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other^permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State^governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.

¶458

12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [State^{of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar,(2011) 10 SCC} 4O4 : (2072) 3 SCC (Civ) 7691 held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have^gained a multi-faceted dimension."

¶459

The Aoex Court in the iudqment reoo rtedⁱⁿ 2oo5 (7) SCC. page 627 in "Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. D RIUS ShaDur. Chennai an Others, vide its Judqment dated 2O.O9.2OO5 at^para No,29 observed as under:

¶460

"29. The A is an exorooriatorv leqi lation. This Court in State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad^Sharma nlr served that in crrrh a aaca the n icinnc af iha <talrrta ch ul ba cf rir.tlrr anncf rr ratl .ac i} danrirrac r person of his land without consent. [See also Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan and CCE v. Orient^Fabrics(P) Ltd.l

¶461

There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that in a case of^this nature due application ot mind on the^part of the^statutory authority was imperative."

¶462

¶463

.l .}..] : .rl

¶464

40, This court opines that the^{pleas put:forth} by all the learned counsel appearing on behalf of ResDondents and the iudqments relled upon bv the Resoondents do n oth ave a nlication to the facts of the

¶465

case r.e.

¶466

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2012 (7) SCC792 (Para 28, 29,39).

¶467

Raunaq Education Foundation Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2015 (1) SCC 767 (Para 11 and 2).

¶468

Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy and Others, 2011 (10) SCC 608^(Para 25,32 and 33)

¶469

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Suhbir Singh and Others, 2016 (16) SCC 258 (Para 9, 19,20 and 21).

¶470

Budhinath Jha Vs. State of Brhar, 2020 SCC Online Pat 2682 (Para 8 and 9)

¶471

Hatigor Tea Estate Vs. Union of India (Para 26)

¶472

Opto Circuit India Limited Vs. Axis Bank and Others, 2027 (6) SCC707 (Para 14)

¶473

4L. Takinq into consideration :

¶474

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

¶475

b) Taking into consideration the contents of the letter dated 09.11.2021 of the Commissioner, GHMC addressed to the petitioner vide Letter

¶476

No. 1 3/ KUITPS I C[R-2O / GHMC / 2ozt,

¶477

¶478

¶479

c) The contents of the response of the petitioner dated 1O.11.2O2Lt to the letter dated 09.11.2O21 of the Commissioner GHMC addressed to the petitioner,

¶480

t ("'

¶481

d) Duly considering the averments made at para Nos. 28t 3(), 31 and 38 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 8th respondent (referred to and extracted above), e) Duly considering the interim orders of this Court dated, 2O.OI.2OL2 passed in W.P.No.124S ot 2O12 and 24.0.12012 passed in W,P.No.1294 of 20L2,

¶482

f) The observations in the judgments of the Apex Court referred to and extracted above,

¶483

S)^{The averments} made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents in W.p.No. 1294 of 2012, W.P.No.65O1 of 2012, W.P.No.1245 of 2OL2 and W.P.No.6577 of 2O12 (referred to and extracted above),

¶484

h) In the light of the discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above

¶485

W.P.No. L294 ot 2OL2, W.P.No.65O1 of 2012,

¶486

W.P.No.1245 ot 2OL2 and W.P.No.6577 of 2OL2 are

¶487

allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶488

':,

¶489

Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, pending, shall stand}