Motilal, (died) per LRs Vs The District Collector

¶1

132s21

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY,^{THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRSJUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:120 15 0F 2003}

¶7

Between:

¶8

llv

¶9

1 Motilal,^{(died) per LRs, S/o Tulja Ram' PJo Nanakramguda' Serilingampa} Mandal, Ranga^{ReddY District.}

¶10

Fl/o. H.No.1-16/5,

¶11

2 T. Prithvi Raj @^{Pudiyiraju, S]o-. tvlotilal.Agriculture} Serilingampally,^{tilanakramguda.R R District'}

¶12

2 T Beerender. S/o. Motilal,^{GovernmentService'} PJo. H.No.1-64, Serilin!ampally,^{Nanakramg.uda,R R District'}

¶13

SerilingampallY,

¶14

4 T. Raiender,^{S/o. MotilalBusinessRl/o H.No1 -18/1 /A'} Nanakiamguda,^{R.R. District.}

¶15

5 T. Jaisinqh, s/o.^{Motilal, AgricultureR/o. H.No.2-5815/3/2,serilingampally'} Nanakrariguda,^{R.R. District.} tPetitioners 2 to 5^{are brought on record as LRs of deceased Sole} F"iiiil;;? ;";"ici,r'ibrd",^{it.o+oq.zotzin wPMP No'11 7e8/2012)}

¶16

6 T.Mahaveer, S/o.Late^{T.Motilal, Fl/o.H' No..1-24l1,Nanakramgudavillage,} Hyderabad,^Telangana.

¶17

7 Smt.Kamlabai,D/o.LateShrilrilotilal,Aged.Major,RJo.l3-1.430-4' ili""gllgiirt, drtivmandir,^{Upperdhulpet, Hyderabad-6' Telangana'}

¶18

8 Smt.ChotiBai,D/o.LateShriMotilal,Ryol3-1-113413'BabaBalakdasl\Iat' Upperdhulpet,^{Hyderabad-6, Telangana'}

¶19

I Smt.Prabha.^{Bai, D/o.LateShri Motilal,} R/o.13-1-1067,^{Gandhibhaikat'} Upperdhulpet,^{Hyderabad-6, Telangana'}

¶20

l0.Smt.SitloBai,D/o.LateShriil/otital,R/o.H.No13-1-565/1'Dilwargunj' Upperdhulpet,^{Hyderabad-6, Telangana}

¶21

'1 1.Nand Kishore, S/o.Late Papalal Singh,^{RJo H No'1-2214' Nanakramguda} ' ' Virrrg", bliiringapaitv Mandal, Ranga R-eddv District' Telangana' on record as^{LRs of the deceased}

¶22

Petitioner Nos'6to11^brought Petitioner No.1^as Per^C.O.dt.2Z 61 2023 in l.A.No.6/20'l^8.

¶23

.PETITIONERS

¶24

AND

¶25

1 The District Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad'} 2 The Special Deputy^{Collector,LandAcquisition(lndustries)' Hyderabad-}

¶26

3 A P lndustriar rnfrastructure corporation Limited., Rep. by its vice-chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad.

¶27

For Unique Inflatables Ltd.rep. by it!_M^anagilS Director, R.Ramdev Rao, S/o. !.?,te^{NarayanaRao, 53 yeari, R/o.Br_C,MLAt} C;io"r,'niirJ r.r"'iz,'srhiJi" Hills, Hyderabad.

¶28

R4 is impleaded as per C.O.dt.17t11t14 in WpMp No..t4520/13.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of rvandamus or any other appropriate writ and decrare that the action of the respondents in agquiring the rands of the petitioner in survey Nos 111l1 and^'1 11 totafly admeasuring Ac. 13-30 guntas in Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga reddy District for the purpose of estabrishment of rnformation and rechnorogy park by the 3rd respondent, is arbitary and illegal and consequenfly direct the respondent to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said lands, and grant such other.

¶31

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2003(wPMP . NO: 14940 OF 2003)

¶32

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 preased to grant stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the lands in survey No. .1 1111/ and 1 1 r totafly admeasuring Ac. 13-30 guntas in Nanakramguda virtage, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga reddy District.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl VARUN THAKUR

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : SRI A.SUDHARSHAN REDDy,

¶35

THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶36

counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI L.pRABHAKAR REDDY sc FoR TSllc

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI C.SRINIVAS

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

4

¶40

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA} WRIT PETITI^{ON No.1o15 ()F 2003}

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

. Heard Sri Varun Thakur,^{tearned counsel appearing} on behalf of the^{petitaoners and Sri A'sudharshanReddy,} learned Advocate^{Generalappearingon behalf ofthe} respondent Nos.1 &^{2 and Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned} standing counsel appearing^{on behalf of the respondent} No.3

¶43

2. The oetition^{ers aD} r^{oachedthe Court seekino Draver} as under:

¶44

"...to issue a Writ of^{Mandamus or any other appropriate} Writ and declare that^{the action of the respondentsln} acquiring the^{landsof the petitionerin surveyNos'111/1} and 111 totally^{admeasuring Ac'13-30 guntas in} Nanakramguda Village^{Serilingampally mandal Ranga} Reddy District for the^{purpose ofestablishment of} Information and^{Technologypark by the 3rd respondentis} arbitrary and illegal^{and consequentlydirect the} respondent to forbear^{from interferingwith the possession} and enjoyment of the^{Petitionerover the said landsand} grant such other...^"

¶45

5

¶46

3 e e ron rl a r v r n a ton !n e d t h on tn h wr on s u nder:

¶47

The present Writ petition was filed on 23.06.2fl(t3, anitially by one Motilal s/o Tuljaram who had passed away on 12.11.20O7 and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 had been brought on record as LRs of deceased sole petitioner as per court order, dafed O4.O4.2OL2 passed in W.P.M.P-No. tt7ga of 2OL2.

¶48

The petitioners, late father i.e., one Mr. Motilal s/o Tuljaram is the absolute owner and possessor of an agriculture land admeasuring Acres 13.3O guntas in Sy.No,111lf and 111 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District and the petitioners' late father had been cultivating the said tands with the assistance of monsoon rains, a bore well and a natural well. In the year 2OO2 paddy crop had been raised in the said subject lands, but in the year 2OO3 due to poor monsoon, the said land had been kept faltow.

¶49

It is further the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent had issued land acquasition notification in

¶50

6

¶51

respect of the neighbouring^{SurveyNos.1O9 & 11O totally} admeasuring Ac.3.29^guntas in^{A.P.Gazette,dated} 13.06.2OO1 for the^purpose of^{developmentof Cyber park.} The owners of the said land and^{few others had filed} w.P.No.18813 of 2OO1^{questioning the said acquisition} and the said writ^petition was allowed^{on O4.o9.2OO2} directing the respondents to conduct^{an enquiry under} Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition^{Act. The respondents} had issued another notification,^{dated 01.O7.2OO2in} respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.4 to^{35 and 4L to 49 of} Nanakramguda Villdge for the^{purpose of new projectsof} the 3'd respondent. The said^{notification was challenged} by petitioners' late father Sri^{Motilal and few othersby} fiting W.P.No .16934 ot 2OO2 and this^{Court granted stay of} all further^proceedings including^{dispossession- The said} interim orders are subsisting as on^{date and had been} made absolute and the said^{W.P.No.16934of2oo2is} pending final adjudication on the file of this^{courtas on} date.

¶52

It is further the case of the^{petationersthat the 2"d} respondent had issued Form-l0, notice^{dated 31.O5.2OO3} stating that as^per the^{A.P. Gazette,dated 1O.O2.2OO3,the}

¶53

7

¶54

land of petitioners' late father had been acquired for establishment of Information and Technology park by the 3'd respondent. The respondents had not published the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act either in the newspapers or in the locality and the respondents had denied enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act under the guase of the urgency in acquisition proceedings. The purpose indicated in the Form-1O, notice, dated 31.05.2003 is not a public purpose within the meaning of the Act and aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the land acquisition notafications for the purpose of establishment of I.T.park by the 3.,r respondent dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act depriving the petitioner with the opportunity of objection under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶55

4.P E RUSED THE RECORD:

¶56

A. The interim orders of this Cou , dated 24.O 7.20fJ3 inf v of h on f .P.M. .1494 f 200 he I .P.N 15of2 ls r hereu nder:-

¶57

" interim stay of dispossession. Notice.

¶58

B

¶59

B .2005 a sed in W.P.M.P.

¶60

ol 2023 and W.V.M.P.No.1O67 ot 2025 in the Dresent

¶61

W.P.No.12O15 of 2OO3 is extraeted hereu! der:-

¶62

"This application is filed by the third respondent in the writ petition to vacate the interim stay dt.24-07-2003 passed in WPMP No.14940 of 2003.

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award has been passed on 27.12.2OO3 and^possession has been obtained on L4.07.2OO3 and thus order of interim stay of dispossession is liable to be set aside.

¶64

Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent (writ petition) submits that the very purpose for which the land is proposed to.be acquired is not for^{publicpurpose} for which the land is proposed to be acquired is not for public purpose and therefore, dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry under the Land Acquisition act is not legal and proper.

¶65

The question whether dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry is legal and proper has be^gone into in the writ petition. It is suffice to say that award has been passed on 27.72.2003.

¶66

In these circumstances - I deem it aoorooriate to modifv the interim order oassed in WPMP No.1494O of 2OO3 to that of status ouo with reqard to the nature and oossess ion of the land existino as on this dav,^pendino disposal of the writ^petition.

¶67

C. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resoondent

¶68

No.3 and in oarticular oara Nos. 5, 7 and I are extracted

¶69

hereu nder: -

¶70

9

¶71

In regard to Para No.3 of the Affidavit of the Petitioner, I submit that the Corporation requested the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 11. 1.2000 for acquisition of lands under the Land Acquisition Act under urgency Clause in survey Nos.4 to 49 totally admeasuring Acs.92.19 guntas situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for development of Cyber Park by APIIC. The 1st Respondent examined the request of the Corporation and approved the Draft Notification vide orders dated 7.2.2OO3 and Draft Declaration vide orders dated 11.2.2003 under the L.A. Act. The DN and DD were got published a follows following the procedure under the LA Act for acquisition of Acs. 13.30 guntas of land in Survey No. lll/1 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampaliy Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶72

	DraftNotificataon	DraftDeclaration
InAPGazette	10.o2.2003	13.O2.2003
InVartha	os.o4.2003	07.04.2003
InNewsBoom	o5.04.2003	oa.04.2003
Inthe locality	29.O3.2003	29.O3.2003

¶73

The substance of the DN and DD was also got published in the locality as mentioned above. I submit that the Cyber Park is a unique project being developed by the Corporation wherein the reputed software units set up their projects to facilitate socio-economic development of the State. It is for public purpose that the lands in question were notified for acquisition. The Software units are highly capital intensive projects providing large employment opportunities. Already an extent of Acs.90.30 guntas of Government of land in survey No.115 of the same village was handed over to the Corporation for development of the IT Park. To ensure compactness of the IT Park/Cyber Park, the lands in question are under acquisition for the above said public purpose. The petitioner may be put to strict proof of his averments that he owns the lands in question, that he was cultivating the same with the assistance of monsoon rains and a bore well and a natural well and that he had raised a paddy crop In the said land last year. I submit that the lands are kept fallow.

¶74

10

¶75

In regard to^{paras 4 to 5 of the Affidavitof the} petitioner, I submit that since the^{lands were urgently} required for development^{of the above said project,the} Corporation requested^{the Respondent No.1 for acquisition} of the lands under urgency^{clause of the LA Act. As such,} the DN & DD were^{published followingthe procedure under} the LA Act invoking the^{urgency clause and the enquiry} under Section 5-A of^{the LA Act was therefore dispensed} with. I respectfully submit^{that the impugnednotificationis} legal, proper and was^{got publishedfollowing the} procedure under the LA Act and the^{lands are proposed for} acquisition for^{public purpose. I submit that the LAO has} taken^possession of^{Acs.13.30 guntasof landunder LA Act} on 74.7.2OO3 and handed^{over possessionof the lands to} the Corporation for^{development of the project. The notices} under Sections 9^{(1) & 10 and 9 (3) and 10 of the LA Act} were issued by the LAO^{in the matter. The LAOhas also} passed Award dated 27.L2.2003^{followingthe procedure} under the LA Act.

¶76

I submit that the^{landsin question were identifiedand} notified for acquisition after^{examining thematter} carefully. The lands in^{questionare essential so as to} ensure compactness of^{the Cyber Park being developedby} the Corporation.^{The developmentworks for the proposed} project would be taken up soon. I^{submitthat invoking} urgency^{provisions underthe LA Act in the present case is} esiential and^{proper since the lands are urgently required} for development of the Cyber^{Park.The lands were} identified taking into^{accountthe requirements of the} project being developed by the^{Corporationand therefore} the allegation that the^{acquisition of the lands of the} petitionel is arbitrary and illegal is not^{correctand the} same is hereby denied.

¶77

D The counter affidavi filed on ehalf of he resDo^dent No.2 and in Da rticular^{Dara No-6is extra} d hereun der:-

¶78

In reply to^{para (4) of the affidavitit is submitted that} the notification under section^{a(1) of the L.A. Act, in} respect of the land in Sy.^{No. 111, admeasuring (13-30)}

¶79

11

¶80

acres, was published in the A.P. Gazette RR-14, dated 10.02.2003, in the Telugu daity, Vartha dated 05.04.2003 and News Boom, English daily. The notices under section 9(1) & 10 and 9(3) & 10 of the Act, duly fixing the date of award enquiry on 16.04.2003, were also served over the persons interested and displayed at appropriate places of the mandal jurisdiction. Since the requisitioning department has expressed urgency. for handing over of the land, notice in Form-10 of the Act, dated 3i.05.2003 was served over the persons interested and possession of the land was taken over on L4.07.2003. The award in the case passed on 27.12.2003. It is not correct to say that the notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Act were ne ither published in the news papers nor in the locality The otificatio s under section 4( 1 )6ofth Act, were Du blished in the V artha Tel qu dailv dated o5.o .2OO3. Ne Boom E^qlish dailv o5.o4.200 3 and 29.03.2OO3 and oa.o4.2 OO3 resoectivelv.

¶81

E Latest additional count r affidavit filed on be alf of the resDondent Nos.1 & 2 filed in Aoril, 2024 nd in Dart icular oara No.6 is extr cted hereunder:-

¶82

In reply to para (4) of the affidavit it is submitted that the notification under section aQ) of the LA act, in respect of the Sy. No. 111, admeasuring (13-30) acres, was published in the AP Gazette RR-14, dated: 10.02.2003, in the Telugu daily, Vaartha dated:05.04.2OO3 and News Boom, English daily. The notices under section 9(1) & 10 and 9(3) & 10 of the Act, duly fixing the date of award enquiry on 16.04.2003, were also served over the persons interested and displayed at appropriate places of the mandal jurisdiction. Since the requisitioning department has expressed urgency, for handing over of the land, notice in Form- 10 of the Act, dated: interested and possession of the land was taken over on 14.07.2003. The 31.05.2003 was served over the persons award in the case passed on 27.I2.2OO3. It is not correct to sav that the otifi un r ton 6 Ac w neither oublished in the news Da ers nor in the loca litv. The notifications under Se ion 4(1)( 6) of the Act were ou bl ish d in the Vaa rtha Teluq u dailv

¶83

r2

¶84

t o5.o oo3 New Boo En h .o4.2 a 2 3.20 a o 200 resDe tivelv.

¶85

F Notice in Fo 10, dated 31.05 .2003 vide No.B /4a412 02oft e2@Re soonde t SD ial De utv I lect nd u tsl In rtes er to ner xtr he n er

*FORM -10

No. t4a4l oo2

Dated: 31.O5.2OO3

Notice under the^{L.A. Act (Act I of 1894)}

¶90

Take notice that the^{marginally noted propertyhasbeen} required by Government^{under the L.A'Actfor the Development} of Cyber Park by^{APIIC Ltd., as per Notificationin the A P'} Gazette No.R.R.No.14^{dated10.02.2003and that you should} vacate and deliver^{possessionof it beforethe eveningof the} date 16.06.2003 to^{the Spl. Dy.Tahsildar LA (Industrial)Hyd'}

¶91

District : Ranga Reddy )^{of this office who has received} Ma ndal : Serilingampally )^{necessaryinstructions in the} Village : Nanak Ramguda )^{matter,if you fail to do so,} : l1.l/l Sy.No. )^{action will be taken to enforce} Extent : Ac.13-30 Gts. )^{this department under Sec'17} of the L.A.Act.

¶92

Special DePuty^collector L.A,(Inds.,) Hyderabad"

¶93

G.T rel n h

¶94

d

¶95

o4.o 9.2.)02. oassedⁱ n^{W.P.N o.1a813of 2OO1is extracted} hereu nder: -

¶96

13

¶97

fnv ew of the authori tive oro ounceme nt of law eclared bv the Aoex Court, d cla ration which was made on O8.O6.2001 even before Dublicat on of notification under Section 4(L) cannot be a o lon de 08.- 6.2OO1 which wasDu blished in the A.P.Gazette RRNo.34. da L4.06.2 OO1 orooosino to aco ulre an exte nt of Ac 3-29 ou tas of I nd belonqino to the Det tioners rs ouas hed. Consequently, the respondents are at liberty to conduct an enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and after making such enquiry, the authorities can pass appropriate orders including making of a declaration.

¶98

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs.

¶99

H

¶100

The ordet, dated o5.o9.2002 Dassed ln P o.2L f inW o.16 of2

¶101

extracted hereunder:-

¶102

" The purpose for which the land in question is sought to be acquired is development ot new projects fy ifre n .P-I.I.C. the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, for such purpose, is not permissible.

¶103

The learned Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition places reliance upon the judgment of the division Bench of this Co-urt in Peddi Anjaiah Vs. Thd L.A.O., Karimnagar (2002 (1) DT (AP) 364) in support of here contention that the power under Section L7 $) of the Act can be invoked in such cases. The Division Bench relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohan Singh vs. International Airport Authority of India (1997) 9 SCC 132).

¶104

The learned counsel for the petitioners however, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Vs. State of U.p. (1998) 6 SCC 1) wherein the principle laid down in Mohan Singh case. as followed in A.P.SAREEN Vs. State of U.p.(1997) 9 SCC 359 was explained and distinguished. In as much as the matter

¶105

t4

¶106

be interim^{staY of all} needs consideration,^{there shall} further Proceedings.^Notice'"

¶107

Th o er t 1 2 3 tn P P o 45 of 2O P 1 3 t20

¶108

e racted^hereunder:-

¶109

"status^{quo as on today shall be maintained by both} the^{parties till further orders"}

¶110

J The ord e^{r,dtedo3.06.o2} DA sed in w.P^Nos.L245

¶111

of 2O12^{and batch.}

¶112

This^{Court as observedbYthe ApexCourt in its} various^{judgementsoPines thatwhen land is notified for} acquisition PUrP^{ose bY the Government,the Collectoris} obligated to^{hold an enquiry on certarnrelevant aspects} including the^{objections submitted bYthe interested} persons and Pass^{an Awardconcerning(a) the exact area} of the acquired^{land,(b) the compensation as maYbe} determined^{under theAct, (c) theaPPortionmentof the} said comPensation^{among all thePersons known or} believed^{to be interested in the land. The veryobject of} issuing the^{notice under the Act is to give a fairand} reasonable^{oPportunity tothe interested Persons to submit} their claim^{with respect to the comPensation for the} acquiled^{land,suchcomPensationcan be claimed on the} basis of^{various factors that maybe relevantin the context} of acquisition^{and the interested persons are} further entitled to^{make astatement before theCollector,} whereup on^{the Collector is obligated to hold an enqu irY on} the obje^{ctions submittedbY the interested Personsand} pass an Awa^{rd. Fo} tr nd tn to co MD^{nsationwithinthe} sta uto heme oft^he A t tv th a tr rt t a ts oiv n thED^rsons ho erl^ohtsar affect d. T rs our res that^{the in} re ed ersonl qIven an r ve rt t o lo he re rt^t

¶113

15

¶114

en ha mt c et e ed rs o mili w th e e f a tv mandate. ThisDrocedu re adm ittedlv had not been followed in th oresent case.

¶115

The Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 07.08.2023 reported in (2023) Livelaw (SC) 632 in M/s. Tirupati Developers Vs. The Union Territory of Dadra a nd Nagar Haveli & Others, set aside the award passed on the ground that fair opportunity of hearing had not been g rven to the claimant and the Award dated 04.05.2020 pas sed in respect of the acquired land of the Appellant there under was set aside together. with the impugned judgment and the order of the High Court and the Collector was directed to issue fresh notice to the Appellant under Section 21 oF the 2013 Act within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and further the Respond ent/Collector there under was directed to consider the objections if any within the stipulated period and the Collector shall thereafter hear the Appellant's representative and pass award afresh after conducting enquiry in accordance with the scheme of 2013 Act with a clear sti pulation that the Collector shall pa ss the Award as early as possible, but not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order

¶116

11.^{The ApexCourt in the judgment} reported in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar V..^-State oi cularat reported.in (1995) Suppl. (1) SCC 596 at para No.48 observed as under :

¶117

Para 48 : In other words, Article 300_4 only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authoritv of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other moje is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300_A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.

¶118

The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2013) 1 SCC 3S3 in Tukarim fana :ostri-Vs. Maharastra fndustrial Development Corporataon at para 8 observed as under:

¶119

16

¶120

"The Apex court held that^{the claimantswere} deprived of^{immovable property in1964. when} nrtlcle :f of the^{Constitution was still intact and the} right to^{property was a part of FundamentalRights} uider Article 19^{of the Constitution. It is pertinent to} note that even^{after the right to propertyceased to} be a fundamental^{right, taking possession of or} acquiring the ProP^{erty of the citizen most certai} tantamount to^{dep rivation and} h ca a nce 'la s il tc 0- Co tution. Such deori vation aan o lv be bv res rtino to^{a nro} rtre D scribedbva tatute. The sam canno bed neb wa f exclusive oat o order or ad ministra t^{ion caDrice.}

¶121

r wh t s tr thi o lna rti r ner s n h an ror at A) (M.Shankara ReddY^{Vs. Amara Rama} koteswara^Rao re^po rted in^{(2017)SCC Online HYd a26)'}

¶122

B) The Division^{BenchofApex Courtin its iudqment} ted 4.to.2 2l in U e ch Lt Vs. Emer Co wner Resid nt^We f re As ciati n and rs. f rte tn 20 21 SCC Onl^{ine SC 3422} referring to^{TaylorVs. TaYlor,} 1875⁽¹⁾ ChD426,^{Nazir AhmedVs. KingEmperor reported} tn (1936) 1.R.63^{Ind AP372 and Parbhani TransPortCo-} Vs. The Regional^TransPort operative Society^Ltd.. Authority, Aurangabad^{&Ors., reported in AIR 1960SC} 801 a!^{paraNo.13 observed as under:}

¶123

"It is that where a^{poweris given to do a} certain thing^{in a certainway, the thing mustbe} done in that^{way or not at all and that other methods} of^{pefformanceare necessarilyforbidden'Hence} when a statute^{requiresa particularthing to be done} in a^{particular manner, itmust be done in that} manner or^{not at alland other methods of} performance are necessarlly^{forbidden'ThisCourt} [oo, has adopted^{this maxim' This rule providesthat} an'expressly laid^{down mode of doing something} necessarily implies^{a prohibitionon doing it in any} other way.

¶124

t7

¶125

TheAo Cou in it its ent i udom nt dated o6 o4.20 22 reDorte tn o22(7)sc 508 tn s kh Dutt Ratra anda other Vs. Stat of lmac hal ad errt th u en o20 s 69i vi D v ta of Himachal Pradesh obse rved as und r:-

¶126

"12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law the State could not ha ve deprived a citizen oF thelr property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana ]oshi v. MIDC (2013) 1 SCC 3s3.: (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) a91l 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.

¶127

12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh f111^tState^{of Haryanav. MukeshKumar,(2011)} 10 SCC 4O4 : (2Ot2) 3 SCC (Civ) 7691 hetd 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 bLen considered in the :"ulT^{of. individual rights such as right to shelter,} livelihood, health, employment, etc.^-Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension.,,

¶128

The A xcourt in the IUdqme nt reDorted ln o 7 c d n Petrole m rDoration Li ited Vs. DARI US h r nn an h v u en da 2 .o9.2 OO5 at Dar No.29 observed as u nder:

¶129

2 Th an rt to Thi o tn t M.P V n ta s m h n h e vl n h t o n u sl DErson ofhi s land without cons nt. [See^also Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan and CCE v. Orient Fabrics (p) Ltd.J

¶130

18

¶131

K. Reioinder to the additional counter affidavit filed bv resDondent Nos.1 & 2, dated L5.O4.2O24 and in Darticulaf Dara Nos. 10, 16 and L7 are extracted hereunder:-

¶132

,'10. That despite of the above said order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the respondents allotted the land area measuring 2.25 acres to M/s Mach Solution Inc. @ Rs.1,91,12,500/- vide allotment letter dated 13.10.2005 which is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-10.

¶133

That in these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law in the cases of^"Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Versus Stbte of Haryana and Other" (2012 (I) SCC 792". The copy of "Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Versus State of Haryana and Other" (2012 (1) SCC 792" is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-16.

¶134

17 . That in the counter affidavit Respondent No.3 himself said that notification under Section 4(t) ot the L.A. in respect of the land in Sy.No.111 and 177/L, Admeasuring (13-30) was published in the A.P. Gazette RR-14 on dated 10.02.2003 and in Telugu Daily, Vartha dated 05.04.2003 and News Boom, English daily. Regarding this aspect Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly said in the case of "Nutakki Sesharatanam Versus Sub.Collector, Land Acquisition, Vijaywada, and other reported in⁽⁷⁹⁹² 7) SCC 774)" at relevant para no.5 as under:-

¶135

On i h m rits ati^c ,.larr fh2f fha acouisition of the land is bad in law because the cr rlicfi n of^f h notificati lrrralar caati.arr 4 T 1 \

¶136

19

¶137

of the said Act was not ublished in the localitv rrrithia fartrr d:rrc af the li ublica t n nf tho not cation in the Govern ent oazette. The time limit of fortv davs for such Dublication in the localitv has been made mandatorv bv section 4(1) of the said A t as amended bv the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act. It is well settled that such noncomDlia nce renders acouisition bad in law."

¶138

L. The allotment letter, dated 13.1O.20O is extracted

¶139

hereu nder: -

¶140

*PROVISIONAL ALLOTMENT LETTER

¶141

Lr.No.22O3 /PM(I PU)/APIIC/2OO5 Date:13-1O-20O5

¶142

To

¶143

M/s Mack Solutions Inc., 6-3-773, G-7, Emerald, Amrutha Hilla, Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 082.

¶144

Sir,

¶145

Sub:- IT Park, Nanakramguda - land for IT Software, IT Enabled Service & IT Infrastructure - Provisional Allotment of land on ORS Basis - in Sy.No.111/2 - Extent 2.25 Acres to M/s Mack Solutions Inc. - Orders Issued - Reg.

¶146

Ref:- 1) Application dt. 30.3.2005 and dt.4.10.05 of M/s.Mack Solutions Inc., Hyd.

¶147

CCITI Meeting tlinutes dt.16-05.2005.

¶148

The application of M/s. Mack Solutions Incl., Hyderabad under reference 1't cited is considered under APIIC Allotment Regulations, subject to the following conditions: -

¶149

20

¶150

M/s. Mack Solutions Incl., is^{provisionally} allotted undeveloped land in Survey^{No. 1} 11l2 measuring 2.25 acres in IT Park, Nanakramguda for setting up of IT Software, IT Enabled Services & IT Infrastructure on ORS Basis.

¶151

The Provisional rate of land cost of Ac.2.25 allotted is fixed at Rs.1482l- PSM towards land cost and Rs.61B/- PSM towards Development Cost. The total provislonal land cost^payable by^you works out to Rs.1,91,21,414,/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety one lakhs twenty one thousand four hundred and fourteen only).

¶152

You should pay the cost of the land of Rs.1,91,21,414/- less EMD of Rs.19,12,500/- which comes to Rs.tr',72,08,914l- to APIIC within 90 days from the date of this allotment order.

¶153

You have paid the EMD of Rs.19,12,500/- vide Rt. No.107357, dt.4-10-05 & Process Fee of Rs. 10,000/- vide Rt.No. 107 357, dt. 4-10-05.

¶154

You should execute an agreement of sale with appropriate stamp duty on full land cost at^your own expenses and arrange registration of the Sale Agreement with the Sub-Registrar concerned within one month.

¶155

You should take physical possession of the^plot immediately after the Sale Agreement is registered.

¶156

You must develop and utilise the land after obtaining permission from the competent authorities viz., CDA/HUDA, Fire, Air Port, Medical etc. as applicable.

¶157

The Company shall commence construction activity within 6 months from the date of taking possession of land and implement the project as envisaged within 2 years.

¶158

27

¶159

You should utilize the land for the purpose for which it is allotted before seeking Registration of the sale deed for the plot in your favour. Alienation of land by you for purposes other than IT is prohibited,

¶160

You should make your own arrangements for getting the provisions of adequate water supplies, telecom linkages, electricity load and other utilities as per the requirements indicated on payment as per the applicable norms in existence.

¶161

1 1) The Company shall be responsible For getting power supply to the unit and shall not claim any re bate/red uctio n in the land cost from the APIC Limited for any delay in getting power supply from the APTRANSCO.

¶162

The statutory payments/Deposits for obtaining power supply connection, water supply connection. sewerage etc, for the exclusive use by the allottee shall be payable by the allottee to the concerned agencies.

¶163

The Company shall pay property tax to the Local Authority/PIC or maintenance charges to APIC as the case may be from time to time as prescribed.

¶164

The Company should pay water charges that will be charged separately for which it has to enter into an agreement with HMWS&SB/ APIC.

¶165

This allotment and occupancy of the land is subject to adherence to the directives issued by the State Board for Prevention and Control of Water and Air Pollu tion.

¶166

Please note that the EMD amounts paid by the allottee, if any, will be forfeited if the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter not complied with by you.

¶167

t7) The Corporation reserves the right to appropriate the money paid by the Company or standing to its credit towards any outstanding dues

¶168

22

¶169

payable by it on any account whatsoever. Payments made by the Company shall be adjusted first towards (penal) interest and balance. if any towards principle outstanding on any account.

¶170

or 18) The allotted land shall not be transferred is conveyed to any^person (s) until the sale deed issued by APIC.

¶171

Registration of the absolute sale deed will be made in your favour after fulfilment of the conditions of allotment.

¶172

The allotment will be confirmed in^your favour through a final allotment letter only after fulfilment of the terms and conditions set-forth herein.

¶173

2I) Any environmental clearances required shall have to be obtained by the allottee.

¶174

Yours faithfu Ily,

¶175

PROJECT MANAGER (IPU)"

¶176

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

¶177

DICUSSION:-

¶178

The lea rncd counsel anoea rln d on behalf rrf the ners mainl wln ubma srons

¶179

support of the oetationers case.

¶180

i) The respondents had denied enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and deprived the petitioners' late father with the minimal opportunity of putting-forth objections under Section 5-A of the Act under the^guise of the urgency in a

¶181

land acquisition proceedings and the same is illegal and arbitrary.

¶182

ii) The respondents had not published the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act either in the news papers or in the locality.

¶183

iii) The establashment of Information and Technology park by the APIfC cannot be construed as a pubtic purpose under the Act.

¶184

iv) There is no semblance of any I.T. park work being taken over in the land.

¶185

v) The petitioners are in possession of the subject lands as on date.

¶186

vi) The petitioners had not been given opportunity of hearing as per mandate of Section 5-A(2) vii) The itione rs are entitled for orant of relief as oraved for in the resent Writ Petition as Der the IUdqm nt of the ADex Court, dated 23.11.2O11 reoorted an 20t2⁽ ) SCC 792 oa SEd .n RAGHB IR SINGH SEH RAWAT vs. s TE OF HARYANA AND OTHE S in view of the fact that th actual l,tlS ston of th€su Iect Iands as ond ate vests wath the Detitioners.

¶187

24

¶188

viii) In spite of the order, dated 13.O6.2OO5^passed in W.P.M.P.No.14940 of 2OO3 and W.V.M.P-No.LO67 of 2OO5, in favour of the petitioner which are in force as on date. The respondent had issued allotment letter, dated 13.1O.2OO5 in favour of the 3'd party and allotted the land area measuring 2.25 acres vide the said allotment letter and the same is illegat, arbitrary.

¶189

ix) The acquisition of the land in the present case is bad in law, because the substance of the notification under Section 4( 1) of the Act was not published in the locality within 4O days of the publication of the notification in the Government Gazette.

¶190

x) Depriving the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing as mandated under Section 5-A of the Act is illegal and arbitrary as observed and held by the Apex Court in its catena of judgments.

¶191

xi) The respondents had not complied with the mandatory requirement of payment of statutory compensation before taking symbolic^possession and therefore, the acquisition of petitaoners' subject lands is illegal and arbitrary as held by the Apex Court in the Case of State of Haryana and

¶192

25

¶193

Another Vs. Devander Sagar and other reported in 2O16 (14) SCC page746.

¶194

xii) The owner of the land can be divested only in accordance with law in view of Articles 3OO-A and 31-A of the Constitution after appropriately compensating the owner if such land as required by the State for Public purpose the same had not been followed in the present case and therefore, land acquisition proceedings stand vitiated.

¶195

xiii) The action of the respondents is contrary to the view of the Apex Court,^judgment dated 14.10.2O22^passed in M/s- Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2O22 Live-Law(SC) 8a8 in Civil Appea! No.24 of 2OO9.

¶196

Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearinq on behalf of the Detitioners contends that the Writ Petition should be allowed as^praved for and olaced reliance on the iudoments of the Aoex Court enlisted.below in su DDort^ofn etitio^{nerq' caqe}

¶197

i) 1992(1) SCC 114 ii) 2ors (1O) SCC 241 iii) 2OLL (4) SCC 769 iv) 2OL3 (L2) SCALE 4 v) 2013(3) SCC764

¶198

26

¶199

vi) 2oos(1) scc 193 vii) 2o11(9) SCC 164 vaii) 2013 (1) scc 3s3

¶200

ix) 2oo2(1) scc 689 x) Civil Appeal No.8226 of 2OI3, Prabhavathi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others.

¶201

xi) 2015(9) SCALE, State of Haryana and Others Vs. Devender Sagar and Others.

¶202

xii) 2ot2(2)scc 327

¶203

xiii) 2O21 SCCOnline SC 1115

¶204

xiv) 2O16 (L4)Scc746

¶205

xv) 2O22 Livelaw (SC) 888 in Civil Appeal No.24 of 2OO9, dated 14.LO.2O22

¶206

xvi) Order, dated o4.11.2OO4^passed in w.P-No.16934 of 2OO2

¶207

xvii) Order, dated 25.O4.2OO3^passed in W.P.No.2t7L2 of 2002

¶208

xviii) 1996 (6) scc 44s xix) 2O14 (13) SCC 721

¶209

xx) 2Ot4 (6) SCC 564

¶210

The learned Advocate General aooearino on behalf of the res Dondent Nos. 1 & 2 nlacino reliance on the ^^{vArmnts made in the counter affidavitfilad} hrr tha resDondent No.2 in October, 2006 and also the averments made in the latest counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resDo ndent Nos.1 & 2 in A Dril 20^{24- rlrAinlv} nuts-forth th^e followinq submissions:-

¶211

i) Land acquisition proceedings had been initiated in respect of lands in few survey Nos situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, which had been requisitioned by the Executive Director, APIIC for

¶212

27

¶213

Development of Cyber Park. Aggrieved with the notification issued under Section 4(1) & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of lands in Survey Nos. 1O9 & 11O (Totally measuring 3.29 acres situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal) few persons interested had approached the High Court by faling W.P.No.1a813 of 2OO1 and the same was disposed of vide orders of the Court, dated O4.O9.2OO2, directing the respondents thereunder to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and in pursuance to the said declaration, the Office of the respondents had conducted enquiry and passed an Award under Section 11 of the Act on 2O.O2.2OO4, the notices were issued to the persons interested on O4,O3.2OO4 and the possession of the land in Sy.Nos.1O9 & 110 was taken over and handed over to APIIC Limited on L4.O7.2OO3.

¶214

ai) In so far as the lands pertaining to Sy.No.111, admeasuring ( 13.3O acres) i.e., the subject !ands of the petitioners herein, the notification u nder Section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the A.P.Gazette RR-14, dated 1O.O2,2OO3. The notices under Section 9 (1) and 10 and 9 (3) and 10 of the Act, duly fixing the date of

¶215

,

¶216

2A

¶217

Award enquiry on 16.04.20O3 were also served over the persons interested and displayed at appropriate places of the mandal^{jurisdiction.} Since the reouisition Department had cvnresscd rrrocnrw fo r handina rrvar fhc land noticc an Form-lo of the Act, dated 31 o5.2OO3 was served over the^persons interested and^possession of the land was taken over L4.O7.2OO3 and Award in the case had been assed on 27.L2.2OO3. The notifica on 4(1) & 6 of the Act, were duly oublished in the Vaartha Teluqu Dailv, dated O5.O4.2OO3 and in New Boom Enqlish Dailv, dated O5.O4.2OO3 and 29.O3.2OO3 and Oa.O4.2OO3 resDectivelv and therefore, the due^procedure as laid w ln h A nA h n wed hence the Detitioner is not entitled for the relief as Draved for and the Writ Petition needs to be dismissed.

¶218

iii) The learned Advocate General^placed reliance on the iudqment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated O7.1O.2OO5 Dassed in W.A.Nos.294, LL39, 1142 and 115O of 2OO5 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that h n f h n f f h d elo ment of t ects the establishment of t rrnderta kan b the a'ACftin nrlanlc tharar rrrrlar in t h

¶219

29

¶220

backdrop of the assertions made in the counter affidavat filed thereunder couoled with the definition under Section 3(fl of the Act can be said to be a oublic ouroose and contended that there is no illeqalitv in acouirinq h etitioner's sub IA rl ^^{ndc far.a nrrhlic} nUT nose and th aff h r f of Informa n n T res DO ndent sco strued asa Dubli c ur h vln natur f undertaken bv the APIIC within the mea ninq of Section 3F of the Act- wh ch defines the exDression "D ublic ouroose"

¶221

Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned Advocate Gen ral appearinq on behalf of the resoondent Nos.1 & 2 co tends that the Writ Petition needs to be dismassed in limini.

¶222

7 The learned standino counsel aDDeari n on behalf of n e t No.3 tn he averm n +ha unter affida vt^{i filael} heha lf of f h o.3 m inl the foll w n submassions:-

¶223

i) The su biect lands of t e oetitioner are under aco u rsrtion for oublic DurDose to utilize the same for

¶224

30

¶225

develooment of Cvber oark to facilitate socio-economic develoDment of A.P. throuqh industrialazation and to create larqe emplovment ooportunities. The^petitioners' subiect lands were also notified for utilizinq the same for the above said oublic ouroo e and draft notification and r f f n were ot ubl ishe the orocedure under the land acquisition Act, since the lands were urqentlv requi d for develooment of the r ect the cor or f h n was taken bv the land acouisition officer under the Land Acquisition Act on 14.O 7.2OO3 Drior to the Dassinq of the interim stav orders of disp ession. dated 24.07.2OO2 an in W.P.N .12015 of 2OO3 an the LAO had also Dassed the Award , dated 27.L2-2OO3 and therefore, in view of the fact that Award had been h n rrsno entitled for in the Dresent Writ Petition. ii) The lands in^question are essential sq as to n m n h c ber ark bein develo d the corporation.

¶226

iii) Invokinq uroencv orovision under the land nA ln h resent case is esse

¶227

t

¶228

31

¶229

tn he lands a f uired f r

¶230

of the Cvber oark.

¶231

iv) The notification issued u nder the land acouisation D ro Der a nd Act Dertaininq to the subiect lands are leqal had been oublished followinq the due orocedure under the !and acquisition Act. Hence, there is no i! leoalitv in the nrocedu adontad lrw the Cltrn ndents in ac aa UI iirr^ tha Detitaoners' su biect lands as alleqed bv t^{e Detitioners.}

¶232

v) The notices u,nder Secti n 9(1) and 10 and 9(3) and 1O of the Iand acouisitaon Act were dul issued as Der due orocedure bv the land acouisition officer. Ther^{e are no} merits and bonafides of the^petitioner filino the^present Writ Petition ndt herefore the writ Pet t nn eeds to he dismissed.

¶233

CONCLUSI

¶234

A bare perusal of the record indicates that this Court passed interim orders in favour of the petitioners, dated 24.07.2OO3 in W.P.M.P.No.L494O of 2OO3 in the^present

¶235

w.P.No.12015 of 2OO3 observing as under:-

¶236

" Interim stay of dispossession. Notice."

¶237

32

¶238

A bare perusal of the above two orders indicates that this Court vide its orders, dated 24.07.2OO3 in W.P.M.P.No.L494O of 2OO3 an W.P.No.12O15 of 2OO3 passed interim orders in favour of the petitioner directing interim stay of dispossession. The said order had been modified vide order, dated 13.06.2005 to that of status quo with regard to the nature and possession of the land existing as on this day pending disposal of the^present Writ.Petition, Even as per the averments made by all the respondents in the counter affidavit as on the date of interim orders of this Court, dated 24.07.2OO3, the physical possession in respect of petitioners' su bject lands i.e,, lands of the petitioner in sy.Nos.LLl/ 1 & 111 totally admeasuring Ac.13.3O guntas in Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District is with the petitioners only and when the said orders had been in force the respondents ought not have hastily passed an Award on 27.t2.2OO3, behind the back of the petitioners when the matter is subjudice before this Court in view of the pendency of the present Writ Petition on the file of this Court

¶239

33

¶240

A bare perusal of the averments made at para No.5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 indicates, the details of the relevant dates pertaaning to the

¶241

acquisition of petitaoners' subject lands as under:-

¶242

	Draft Notification	DraftDeclaration
InAPGazette	10.o2.2003	13.O2.2003
InVaartha	o5.o4.2003	07.04-2003
InNewsBoom	o5.04.2003	o8.o4.2003
Inthe locality	29.O3.2003	29.03.2003

¶243

A bare perusal of the material documents filed by the petitioner along with' the rejoinder affidavat to the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in April, 2024 cleatly indicates the provisional allotment letter, dated 13.1O.2OO5 issued by APIIC Limited in favour of M/s. Mack Solutions, Punjagutta, Hyderabad indicating, the Iand to an extent of 2.25 acres in Sy.No.111/2 in Nanakramguda as having been allotted for setting up of I.T.Software, I.T.Infrastructure, I.T.enable services on ORS basis, when this Court vide its orders, dated 13.06.2OO5 in W.P.M.P.No.1494O of 2OO3 nd W.V.M.P.N .1067 f cnanifiarllr; rliraatad cfr tus- uo wath t aat ard to the na frria and oossession of the land existino as on 13.06.2OO5 to be

¶244

34

¶245

IN d o h marn r1 titi No.12O15 of 2OO3- this Cou ooines that the r Dondent coroorati n ouoht not have^disobeved the^{ordrs of this} court bv issurno a Drovlslo nal allotment^{letter. dated} 13.1O.2OO5 in res of the Detitaoners' subiect^I andsⁱⁿ t vour rd Dartv and the same amounts to wi lful .liG^ha die 6i,a nf f he ardarc 6f thi^c aarrr'f and t^ha resDon ents had deliberatelv^commatted contemDt of Cou rt.

¶246

L2. Cou d me 29.08. reDort in 2O12 Vol scc 5O3 in P tasi Devi Vs.^S tate of Harvana nd others dealino with a case whe the land acq u isition Droceed inos had been hallenoed even after Dassl n of Award interfered with the aco u isition oroceedi nos verv cle rlv^{observinqat oara No.14of the} said iudoment that acouisition of^{the aDDellants'!and} nder edd urabl r e w rb t vern In th n ca h etati roac urt w k in the 2OO3 and obtained interim orders in their^{favou r initiallv} 24.O7 n ub m ifie 1 .o6. , n.l subcicf i6rr rc on date^{irr fr} v roft^{ha rrati} rone fha

¶247

could n ve exercised their a rbitraril when the oresent Writ Petition No .12O15 of 2OO3 is oendino final adiud ication before this Court and when the subiect issue involves oetitioners' riqht to Drooertv. which is a huma n riqht and also a co nstitutiona l rioht nder Article 3OO-A of. the constitution which clearlv^provides that no^persons shall be deprived of thear oroperties save bv authoritv of Law. meanino therebv that cann ssac tz n her tin with h ees ti !aw.

¶248

The Apex Court in the judgment, dated 15.O4.2O11 reported in 2011 vol 5 SCC 553 in Sri Radhy Shyam (Dead) through LRs and Others Vs. State of U.p. and Others categorically held that the property of a citizen cannot be acquired by the State or its agencies/instrumentatities wathout complying with the mandate of Sections 4, 5-A & 6 of the Act and the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that a public purpose, however laudable it may be, does not entitle the State to invoke the urgency provisions because the same have the effect of depriving the owner of his or her right to property without being heard and only in a

¶249

36

¶250

case of real urgency the state can invoke the urgency provisions and dispense with the requirement of hearing the land owners or other interested persons. This view of the Apex Court had been reiterated in its catena of judgments and the said principle had been upheld, but in the present case. it is clearlv admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3⁴ resoondent at Dara No.7 fhaf the rlraff nnlifiraf ian sntl A,.sff da.Irr-rf i^rr r^ra16 published followinq the procedure under the land acouisition Act invokinq the uroencv clause and enouirv under Section 5-A of the Land Acouisition Act was therefore disoensed with. The said stand had been ate en in the c u ter a davit filed b al the respondent No. 2 at^para No.6 contendinq that since the requisitioninq department had exDressed urqencv, for handinq over of land, notice in Forrh-1O of the Act, dated 31.05.2003 was served over the Dersons interested and possession of the lands was taken over on 14.O7.2OO3. It is also^pertinent to brino on record that in oursuance to the orders of this Court, dated O4.O9.2OO2^passed in W.P.No.18813 of 2OO1^pertainino to lands situated ioners'sub ect ta ds i.e. land

¶251

37

¶252

Sv.No. 09 & 11O. tota llv^{measurino3.29 acres situated at} Nan a kram orrda Villaoe. Serili^da m^rta v M^andal h ch also had been reouisitioned bv t e Executive^Dire r, APIIC for develoDment of Cvber Park. 5-A enouirv^{had been} conducted and due Drocedure^{foowed. but however} rn re f ition he r had b n deorived of oooortunitv t submit their written ecti h res o t nctaon n sanction of law.

¶253

The order of this Court, dated^{1O.O9.2014 oassed in} W.P.No.1 83 of 2oO3 and in oarticular^{oaraNo.19 is} extracted ereu n der:-

¶254

For the foregoing reasons, writ^{petition is partly} allowed, setting aside the draft declaration^{issued by the} District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, under^{Section6 of} the Act vide proceedings^{No.GU576t/2OO2dated} 18.10.2002^(Published in Andhra^{Pradesh Gazettee} R.R.No.56 dated 30.10.2002). It is ooen for^the resoondents hold enouirv under Secti on 5-A of the Act bv^qivin o notice and oooortunitv of^{beio heard} to the D titioners herein a nd^{oroceed furthr. as Der} law. As seoue!, the misceltaneous oetition s. if^anv. shal! stand disposed of. No order as to^costs.

¶255

It is also^pertinent to bring on^record the^{fact borne} on record that in respect of lands situated^{in surveynos.4} to 35 and 4L to 49 of Nanakramguda^Village,

¶256

38

¶257

Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, pertaining to acquisition by APIIC Limited for the purpose of development of new projects, this Cou rt vide its order, dated O4.11.2OO4 in W.P.No.16934 ot 2OO2 following its earlier orders, dated 25.O4.2OO3 in W,P.No.21712 ot 2OO2 had disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the respondents to issue notice for an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act to the petitioners thereunder and take appropriate further action after such enquiry. This Court in respect of lands in Sy.No.112 & 113 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilinganipally Mandal, Rangareddy District which was notified for identical purpose as in the present Writ Petition i.e., for establishment of I.T.Park by the APIIC, vide its orders, dated 1O.O9.2014 an W.P.No.1883 of 2OO3, set aside the Section 6 Declaration, dated 14.1(}.2OO2 and observed that it was open for the respondents thereunder to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners thereunder and proceed further as per law, however in the present case, the respondents failed to follow the said procedure and in spite of the interim orders of this Court in favour of the petitioners, dated

¶258

39

¶259

24.07.2OO3 & 13.06.2005, hastily passed Award on 27.L2.2OO3 falsely contending that possession of the petitioners' subject land was taken over on 14.07.2OO3 and in spite of a clear orders of status quo, dated 13.06.2OO5 passed in favour of the petitioners herein in the present writ Petition hastily issued the provisiona! atlotment letter, dated 13.1O.2OO5 to a 3'd party, provisionally allotting undeveloped Iand in Sy.No.11112, measuring 2.25 acres in Nanakramguda Village, Serilingamplly, Rangareddy District pertaining to the petitioners herein, when the matter was subjudice before this Court and the Wrat Petition No.12O15 of 2OO3 was pending final adjudication before this Court.

¶260

A bare perusa! of the relevant records in particular the counters of the respondents herein clearly indicates that the draft notification is published in the A-P.Gazette on 10.O2.2OO3 and the draft declaration on 13.O2.2OO3, the draft notification is published in Vaartha and News Boom on O5.O4.2OO3 and the draft declaration is published in Vaartha on 07.O4.2OO3 & O8.O4.2OO3 and the substance of the draft notafication had been published in the locality on 29.O3.2OO3 and the substance of the draft

¶261

40

¶262

dectaration had been^published in the locality on 29.O3.2003. The above relevan dates are clearlv indicated at Dara No,5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3d respondent and also at oara No.6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 24 resDondent a^nd reiterated the same at Dara No.6 of the latest additional counter a davit fi edo n beh alf of the n n Nos.1 & 2. n ifies two laDses in the D sent case in followino the la nd aco uisition edure as lai h n A u isitio i) The declaration under Section 5 had been made even before the publication of notification under Section 4(1)' ii) The substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not^published an the locality within 40 days of the publication of the notification in the Government Gazette.

¶263

Firstlv as held bv the A Dex court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Radhev Shvam Nioam reDorted in AIR 1989 Supreme court 682 whereunder it has been cateqoricallv held that secti6n 5^declarato nhas to^be ma^{.le afterthe} fn ifi on under Sec

¶264

4L

¶265

r mec he m nt inte Dreti nq section L7(4)^o f the nd Aco uisition A^ct. 1a94 held s follows:It is true that the^{exDresion "after thedate ofthe} u tio hen ifi atio " introd inS nL7 4 an x a as kin han r m orovl sions of law bv^rea dind^{it atonq with theamend} ent made tn section 4^where bv^{indifferentsituationin} Section 4, the last date ofp bl icatio n of notice has een determi ned as the date of^{oublication ofth} notifi tion and similarl vinS ion 6, date the D bl icatio nof noti has be n orovid d for.^{But the wor} ds afte r the date of the Du lication f notification " in su b-section 4 of Section L7 read si Dliciter clea rlv indicates the declaration under^Section6ha tobem ade after the o f n to a her u n he e he licat ft noti cation. It^{aDDearsto us that thereis nothinqin the} militates a aanst^sucha sche e of t e Act,^which ru n. At e n vtsl t invoked emeroent action av be taken. but in such^a n ln vre f he stat w tha re it

¶266

42

¶267

lcrriclatrrre hac m atla a conscrnr rc rha nrra which ca nnaf lra exolained awa v merelv because this is as a^{conseo uences} of the cha oes in Sections 4 & 6 of the Act.

¶268

ines that vl w f the aforesai a uthoritative ronouncement of law bv the ADex Court declaration, w ich was made on 13.O2.2OO 3 even^before the oublication of notification under Sectio n⁴⁽ 1)^cannot be sustaina!le.

¶269

Secondl v. as held bv the ADex Court in "Nuttakki Shesharatnam vs. Sub-Collector, Land Aco uisition, viiavawada and Other reoorted in 1992( 1) c 114. it had been held and observed at^para Nos.s^{& 6 as under:}

¶270

"5. on the merits it is clear that the ac^o uisition^of the land is a bad in law, because the^substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of^{the Act was} not Dublishe in the localitv within 40 davs of the Dublication of the notification in the^Government Gazette, th time limit of 40 da s for such oublication of the localitv has been^{mademandatorv} hv Sc.f n4⁽ 1 'l .tf thp ca i.l A.t .c amend hrr flro And h ra orade h^(Amendment) Act. It i well settled

¶271

43

¶272

that such non-comoliance renders acquisition bad in law."

¶273

hea eal succe n f writ Detition as made absolute. at is declared that th e acquisition of the aforesaid land of the aooellant is bad in law. f the oossession has b n taken, the same must be returned to the aooellant.

¶274

L7. A full Bench iudoment of this Court, dated (J3.L2.L942 Dorted .in 1982 SCC Onli e AP 241 in nd Oth v G v fA.P.&O h raN .139 e clearl rv h ification un r 1 of th land acouisiti n Act shall be oublished in the localitv simultaneousl or immediatelv with minimum possible delav and anv^publication of such substance in the localitv beyond 3(}' davs makes the fication void irresoective of the fact wh ther 5-A enouarv was disoen ed with or not and everv dav's delav in oublishinq the notification within 30 davs-make the notification vulnerab e nd Iiabletob e on the fa an tr lna tven the citizen es blishes that he was Dreiudic ed bv the delav in oublis inq the same in the localitv.

¶275

44

¶276

This Court ooines that in view of the aforesaid authoritative Dronouncement of law bv the full Bench of the then Andhra Pradesh Hiqh Court, in view of the fact as borne on record as Der the averments made at Dara No.s of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resoondent N 3 h n f h n ifi n n I of the land Acouisition Act w s oublished in the localitv on 29.O3.2OO3 that is beyond 40 davs of the publication of the notifacation under Section 4(1) in the Government Gazette, since an the^present case, the draft notification was oublished in the A.P-Gazette officiallv on 1O.O2.2OO3.

¶277

In so far as the Dlea of the Detitioners is concerned t[at there is no leqality in the land acquisition proceedinqs, since the establishment of information and technoloqv^park bv the APIIC cannot be construed as a public purpose under the Act, this Court holds the said plea of the petitioners aqainst the petitioners herein in view of the Division Bench iudqment of ADex Court iudoment, reported in 2OO8 vol 9 SCC 552 in Sooraram Pratap Reddv Vs. District Collector, Ranoareddv District at nara Nos-13O & 131 observed as under:-

¶278

45

¶279

APIIC is an instrumentality of State and works as "nodal agency" developing the project which would facilitate socio-economic progress of the State by generating revenues, weeding out unemployment and bringing in new avenues and opportunities for public at Iarge. Development of infrastructure is legal and legitimate "public purpose" for exercising power of eminent domain. Simply because a company has been chosen for fulfilment of such public purpose does not mean that the larger public interest has been sacrificed, ignored or disregarded. It will also not make exercise of power bad. mala fide or for collateral purpose vitiating the proceedings.

¶280

In our judgment, the respondents are right in submitting that in case of integrated and indivisible project, the project has to be taken as a whole and must be^judged whether it is in the larger public interest. It cannot be split into'different components and to consider whether each and every component will serve public aood. A holistic approach has to be adopted in such matters. If the project taken as a whole is an attempt in the direction of bringing foreign exchange, generating emptoyment opportunities and securing economic benefits to the State and the public at large, it will serve public purpose

¶281

A Divi nB of this C ide its ud m

¶282

dated L3.O2.2O24 Dassed in W.P.No.8293 of 2O15 & batch dealino with an identical assue pertaanino to acouisition of certain la nds, situated in Sv. 0.158. 159. 160. 161, 162 & 163 of Gooanoallv Villaoe, Serilinoamoallv MandalRanoareddv District for the DurDose of establi hment of f T nr rl, and rel ,iad rrr..ria.fc as Iter t h f ton m atlo the z n er API ited a s.33& observed as under:-

¶283

46

¶284

Thus, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is beyond any pale of doubt that the land acquisition in the instant cases is for a public^purpose and therefore, the proceedings initiated for acquisition of land by notifying under Section a(1) of the Act cannot be said to be a colourable exercise of power. The contention therefore deserves to be repelled.

¶285

For the aforementioned reasons, the impuqned notifications insofar as thev Dertain to the lands of the oetitioners and insofar as thev orovide that the oetitioners are required to submit the obiections within a Deraod of fifteen davs are herebv auashed. Needless to state that the respondents shall be at libe rtv to resum e the Dro edinos initiated from the sta oe of invitin o obiectron under Secti.rn 5-A^(rf the Act afresh, in case they are so advised. Needless to state that the petitigners shall be at liberty to raise all such objections before the authority holding the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and the same shall be adjudicated independently by such authority without being influenced by any of the observations contalned in this order, which have only been made for the purpose of deciding the issue with regard to the validity of notification under Section a(1) of the Act.

¶286

In the counter affidavit filed by the 8th Respondent in W.P.No.1294 ol 2OL2 at para 34 a specific plea is taken contending that the Petitioners are not in^possession of the subject land, strangely no report of the^possession proceedings evidencing the said fact is brought on record by any of the Respondents in any of the writ petition except stating that possession of the subject lands is not with the Petitioners.

¶287

47

¶288

The Apex Court in the^{judgment reported in (2023)} Livelaw (SC) 3O2 in its^judgment dated^{11.04.2023 in} Land and Building Department/ through Secretary^and Another vs. Attro Devi & Others at^para 12 observed^as under:

¶289

"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 opihed 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 tr6spasser. When large chunk of^landis 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 person is nothing else but trespass on the State land. Relevant paragraphs 244, 245 and 256 are extracted below:

¶290

"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 thereupon land vest free from all encumbrancesⁱⁿ the State Government. Similar are the^provisions made in the case of urgency in Section 17(1). The word "possession" has been used in the Act of 1894, whereas in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, the expression "physical^possession" is used. It^is submitted that drawino of Dan hnama for takano over the oossession is not eno^{uoh when} the actua! Dhvsica! oo ssion remained with h n wner and S io actual Dhysical Dossession to be taken, not the

¶291

I

¶292

48

¶293

DOSSeSS ion in nv other form. When the^Statehas acquired the land and award^{has been passed,lan} d vests in the State Government^{free fromall} encumbrances. The act of^{vesting of the land in the} State is with^possession, any^{person retainingthe} possession. thereafter, has to be treated^as trespasser and has no right to^{possess the land} which vests in the State free^{fromall encumbrances.} 245. The question which arises^{whether thereis any} difference between taking^{possession under the Act} of 1894 and the expression^{"physicalpossession"} used in Section 24.(2). As^{a matter of fact, whatwas} contemplated under the^Act of^{1894, by takingthe} possession meant only^{physical possession} of^the land. Taking over the^{possessionunder 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^{totaking the} physical possession of the land. On the large^chunk of property or otherwise which^{is acquired, the} Government is not supposed^{toput someother} person or the police force in^possession to^{retain it} and start cultlvating it till^{the land is used by it for} the purpose for which it^{has been acquired. The} Government is not supposed to start^{residingor to} physically occupy it once^possession has^{been taken} by drawing the inquest^{proceedings for obtaining} possession thereof. Thereafter, if any^further retaining of land or any reentry^{is madeon the land} or someone starts cultivation on^{the open landor} starts residing in the^{outhouse,etc., is deemed to be} the trespasser on land^{which in possessionof the} State. The^{possessionof trespasser always inures for} the benefit of the real owner^{that is the State} Government in the case. xxxx

¶294

Thus,I t is aDDarent^{that vestinqis with} DOSS ion and t e statute h s^{orovidedu nder} Sectaons 16 and 17 of the^{Actof 1894 that once} DOSS ion is taken. absolute vestino^oc u rred. It is an indefeasible right and^{vesting is with} possession thereafter. The vesting specified^under Section 16, takes^{place after various steps, such as,} notification under Section 4,^{declarationunder}

¶295

49

¶296

Section 6, notice under Section 9, award^under Section 11 and then^possession. 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 encumbrances are 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 landowner^over 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^possession of trespasser^enures for his benefit and on behalf of the owner ."

¶297

(emphasis supplied)

¶298

It is th sDec ific case of theDe tationers that t he nhrrc osses^ci;r;r.af t h b ec^1lrlr.lc voctc with tha

¶299

petitioners as on date.

¶300

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 29 that the^{Petitionershave not been} paid any compensation and that no notice was issued for delivery of possession of acquired land and the^Petitioners are^{put to} strict proof of the same and^para 33 it^{is specificallycontended} that it is settled^principle of law that after^{passing of Award,} taking of possession and delivery of the said^Iand to^the beneficiary, the retention of the^{possession by the Petitioneris} far from truth and such^possession if any^{would tantamountto} being unlawful, but however . none of the documents^filed

¶301

50

¶302

on behalf of all the ResDondents nor the counter affidavits on behalf of al! the ResDondents^qive sDecific details and evidence Dertaininq to Petitioner receivino comDensation and evidence Dertaininq to Petitioner havinq received the notice for deliverv of oossession of acquired land and the details of the date of takino of oossession and deliverv of c.aid larr.l f.r fha honofiriarw

¶303

A bare perusal of the contents of the letters dt. O9.LL.2O2L and the Jetter dt. LO.LL.2O2L referred to above also clearly. proves that the averments in the counter affidavit filed by 8th Respondent BHLPL at Para 28, 30, 31 and 38 are factually incorrect and the plea of the 8th Respondent that possession of the Petitioners subject lands had been taken over by the Government is false, since the said counter .affidavit of the 8th Respondent had been filed into the Registry in November 2015 and the Petitioner was requested to handover possession in respect of the subject lands vide letter dated o9.11.2o2L. The 8th Respondent counter failed to give any details pertaining to report of the alleged possession proceedings nor any copy of the panchanama or the date when the notice had been issued to the

¶304

51

¶305

Petationer after passing of the Award U / s.t2(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶306

The Apex Court in its recent judgment dt. 07.O4.2O23 reported in (2023) Livelaw (SC) 632 in M/s. Tirupati Developers Vs. The Union Territory of Dadra and Other Haveli & Others, set aside the award passed on the ground that fair opportunity of hearing had not been given to the claimant and the Award dated O4.O5.2O22 passed in respect of the acquired land of the Appellant there under was set aside together with the impugned judgment and the order of the High Court and the Collector was directed to issue fresh notice to the Appellant under Section 21 of the 2013 Act, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and further directed the Appellant there under to consider the objections if any within the stipulated period and the Collector shall thereafter hear the Appellant's representative and pass award afresh after conducting enquiry in accordance with the scheme of 2013 Act with a clear stipulation that the Collector shall pass the Award as early as possible, but not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶307

57

¶308

This Court oDines that the above referred verdict lies in fln of the f n well.

¶309

This Court has held in Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, 2(J24 s,CC OnLine SC 932 and State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 that the right to froperty is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. This Court held in Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. thr. Power of Attorney Holder v. M.I-D.C. and Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 353 that in a welfare State, the statutory authorities are legally bound to pay adequate compensation and rehabilitate the persons whose lands are being acquired. The non-fulfilment of such obligations under the garb of industrial development is not permissible for any welfare State as that would tantamount to uprooting a person and depriving them of their constitutiona l/ h u ma n right.

¶310

TheA D x Court in the iudoment re orted an 2024 SCC online SC 96a in Kolkata Municio al corDoration and Another Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and Others identified seven n()n -exhausttve sub-riohtq thaf accrue to a land

¶311

owner when the State intends to acouire his/her^prooertv, the relevant bservations of this Court nder the said

¶312

iudqment are reoroduce^{d below}

¶313

¶314

... Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit nonexhaustive. These are: i) duty of the State to inform the^person that it intends to acquire his^property - the right to notice, ii) the duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition - the right to be heard, iii) the duty of the State to inform the^person of its decision to acquire - the right to a reasoned decision, iv) the duty of the State to de.monstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose - the duti to acquire only for public purpose, y) fha rlr rfrr of the State to re G+it.rfa .arr.l rahrhilitrto f h raqht of restitution.or fair compensation, vi) the dutv of h roces of ac uisation effi and within^prescribed tamelines of the Droceedinqs - the r! o htto an efficient an rl exned itiouq nrrrcess. and vii) fina I conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting - the right of conclusion..."

¶315

This Court held that a fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition^process.

¶316

The Apex Court in the^judgment reported in 2016 vol 6 SCC page 15O vide its^judgment, dated 15.O2.2O16 in Chandrakant Adinath Utture Vs. State of Maharashtra and

¶317

Others at para Nos. 15, 16 & 17 observed as under:-

¶318

Passanq of the award !v itself does not mean thil anv illeqalitv should not be addressed. In the instant case, the writ petitions were filed when the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published, and in any case, it is submitted by the appellants that they have not been

¶319

54

¶320

dispossessed so far and no compensation also has been paid.

¶321

Therefore, the High Court is not right in holding that the requirement of notice on objections and suggestions need only be in respect of the lands coming under Section r3(1)(a) of the Act (the affected zones) and Section 13(1)(b) of the Act (the benefitted zones). The High Court is right, however, in holding that no notice is required in respect of the lands belonging to the slab under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, when it is issued for the first time. However, in case there is a change in the slab reducing the area of exemption from^'acquisition in the benefitted zone, the procedure under Section 13 (2) of the Act is required to be followed.

¶322

For the above reasons/ these appeals are disposed of permitting the appellants to prefer their objections or submit their suggestions on the change of slab from Slab III to Slab I before the Collector within one month from today. The Collector shall make appropriate inquiry on the objections or suggestions and forward his report to the State Government within another two months. The State Government shall pass appropriate orders on the report within another two months. Depending on the orders thus passed by the Government, the Collector shall revise the awards already passed, if required. The appeals are allowed to the above extent.

¶323

zfl. This Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petation as for b the n h followin

¶324

[easons:

¶325

i) As borne on record, as per averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 3'd respondent, para No.7, the draft notificataon and draft declaration had been published invoking the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition

¶326

55

¶327

Act, The respondent authorities a re not justified in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by invoking the provisions of Section l7(4) of the Act since the purpose of the acquisition an the instant case does not warrant the invocation of the said provision of law, sance the Detitloner cannot be deorived of his riqht to DroDerW witho ut beinq heard.

¶328

ii) Petitioners' right to property cannot be taken away except in accordance with law, since rioht oroDerw is ita n f under A of th Constitution Drotec oetitioner's riohts.

¶329

iii) Passino of t e award bv itself does not mea n that anv illeoalitv sh ould not be addressed in the instant case, the petitioners approached the Court in the year 2OO3 and obtained anterim orders in their favour on 24,07.2OO3 and the said orders had been modified on 13.06.20O5 and in spite of the said orders in force and the present Writ Petition No.12O15 of 2OO3 is pending final adjudication on the file of this Hon'ble Court contrary to the orders of this Court, provisional allotment letter, dated 13.1O.2OOS had been issued by the 3'd respondent herein in favour of the

¶330

56

¶331

3'd party provisionally altotting the subject^{land in} Sy.No.111/2 measuring 2.25 acres in^l.T.park, Nanakramguda. The same is a clear^{examole of colourable} exercrse of oower bv the re^{soondentsheretn.}

¶332

iv) As^per the averments made at^{para No.5 of the counter} affidavit filed on behalf of the^{respondentNo.3, this Court} takes note of the fact borne on^{recordthat there are two} serious lapses on the^part of the^{respondents herein in the} present acquisition proceedings in^question:-

¶333

i. The declaration under Section 6^{in the A.P'} Gazette is dated 13.O2.2OO3 and the same^is made even before the^{publicationofthe} notification under Section 4( 1) and therefore, the same cannot be sustainable as^{per, the} interpretation of Section^{a7 (4)} of the^Land Acquisition Act, 1984 by the^Apex Court^{in ats} judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Radhe Shyam Nigam reported in AIR 1989 Supreme^Court 682, since the same is the law of the^{land under} Article 141 of the Constitution of India'

¶334

ii. As per the averments made at^{para No'5} of^the counter affidavit filed on behalf^ofthe

¶335

respondent No.3, the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the locality on 29.O3.2OO3 and the same admittedly as borne on record is not within 40 days of the publication of the notification in the Government Gazette, since the 4(1) notification in the A.P.Gazette is dated 1O.O2.2OO3 and the said non compliance of the statutory requirement renders acquisition bad in law as held by the Apex Court in its judgment reported in 1992 vot 1 SCC 114 in Nutakki Shesha ratn m Vs. Sub-Collector, Land Acouisition. Viiavawada.

¶336

v) This Court also takes note of the fact borne on record that in respect of Sy.No.112 & 113 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District which had also been notified for acquisition purpose by the 3'd respondent herein for the purpose of establishment of I.T.Park, this Court vide its order, dated 1O.O9.2O14 in W.p.No.1883 of 2OO3 directed the respondents thereunder to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by giving notice

¶337

58

¶338

and opportunity of^{being heard to the petitioners} there under and Proceed^{further asper the law.} Petitioners herein^{are adjacentland} holders, but however even^{before the finaladjudication of} present W.P.No.12O15 of^{2oO3 on merits with a} malafide intention^{only to defeatthe case of the} petitioner ignoring the^{interim orders grantedin} favour of the^{petitioner,dated 24} 'O7 '2OO3^& 13.06.2005^{passed in the present Writ Petition, the} res ndents herein^ha d^{hastilvoassed the Award} and he el vl tiv o h r nd herein to bvDas^{s theordersof this Cou} and the sa e amo nts to^contemotofC u rt.

¶339

vi) In view of the^{fact that the petitionerfailed to} challenge 4(1)^{notification or the 6 Declarationor the} Award^{passed behind the back of the petitioners'this} Court opines that^{this Courtcannot} 90^{beyond the prayer} as sought for by^{the petitioners herein, though it is a fit} case to set-asade^{the same.}

¶340

This Cou rt^oDlnes hat the iudqm nts^{relaed uoonbv} the lea rne Advo ate Ge eral^{aDeannoonbehalf of the} res onde Nos.1 &2a d the^{lea rnedstandi no counsel}

¶341

59

¶342

aoD nnq o behalf of the resoondentno.3 do not a oDlv tot e facts of the oresent case.

¶343

Takinq into c nsiderat lon:-

¶344

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

¶345

b) The submissions put-forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationers, tearned Advocate Generat appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the learned standing counsel appearingon behalf of the 3.d respondent.

¶346

c) The interam . orders granted in favour of the petitioners on 24.07.2OO3 in W.p.M.p.No.14940 of 2O03 which were subsequently modified vide orders, dated 13.O6.2005 passed in W.p.M.p.No.14940 of 2OO3 and W.V.M.P.No.LO67 of 2OO5 and hich re ln force as on date.(referred to and extracted above)

¶347

d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.l, 2 and 3 (referred to and extracted above)

¶348

e) The averments made in the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner to the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶349

50

¶350

f) The earlier orders of this Court^{passed in similar} circumstances, dated 10.09.2014^passedin W.P.No.1883 of 2OO3, the order, dated^O4.11.2OO4 passed in W.P.No.16934 ol 2OO2, the order, dated 25.O4.2OO3^passed in W.P.No.217L2 of^2oo2.

¶351

g) The observations of the Division Bench^judgment of this Court, dated L3.o2.2o24^passedin w.P.Nos.8293, LO1O7, 10598,^L4O6L. 23945,^24608, 27505 of 2OO5, 33376, 38695 of^{2013, 22798,} 22803, 23787, 24373, 2439(J,^{244OO,244Oa of 2015} and 8291 oJ 2023 in^{particular para No.34(referred} to and extracted above)^which are^{in favourof the} Detitioners he^reln.

¶352

h) ments A ex Court rr dtoa extracted above) aqain enlist d below:-

¶353

i) 2016 vol 6 SCC^page 15O

¶354

ii) ArR 1989 SC 6a2

¶355

iii) 1992(1) scc 114

¶356

(iv)(2023) Livelaw (sC) 302.

¶357

(v) (2023) Livelaw (sc) 632.

¶358

(vi) 2O2a SCC OnLine sC 932

¶359

(vii) (2011) 10 scc 4o4

¶360

61

¶361

(viii) (2013) 1 scc 353

¶362

(ix) 2O2a SCC online SC 958

¶363

(x) 2016 vol 6 SCC page 15O

¶364

The present Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for and the action of the respondents in acquiring the lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.1LL/L & 111, totally admeasuring Ac.13.3O guntas in Nankramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District for the purpose of establishment of Information and Technology Park by the 3'd respondent without.following the due procedure under law is declared as arbitrary and illega! and the respondents are directed to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the petitioners' subject lands situated in Sy.No.1Ll/t & LLLt totally admeasuring Ac.13.3O guntas in Nankramguda Village, Serilingampa!!y Mandal, . Rangareddy District. However, there shal! be no order as to costs.

¶365

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶366

Petitio n, shall stand closed.

¶367

That Rule Nisi has^{been made absolute as above'} WitNESS rrrE rrdi.iALr^{rrrc CXiCFJUSTTCEAPARESH KUMAR SINGH,ON-thiS} "'iiiijr.r6eV, rxE r.rir.rin oev orjurue rwo rHousAND AND rwENw FlvE

¶368

I

¶369

SDIM.OSMAN^{ALI BAIG} AS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

¶370

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble^{Mrs JusticeSUREPALLI NANDA} (For her LadYshiP's Kind^Perusal)

¶371

To,

¶372