Allowed

Dr. N. Madhav Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Dec 2025WP/23169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged urban land ceiling proceedings and rejection of building permission over plots at Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda. The court held the alleged possession panchanama was a paper possession since no Section 10(5) notice was served, so proceedings abated on repeal of the ULC Act.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings No.E1/11114/2012 dated 22.03.2012, proceedings dated 19.10.2016 and notices dated Nil.06.2016 quashed; authorities directed to consider building applications without reference to the ULC p

Dr. N. Madhav Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos: 150 of 2013 924O ot 2O15 20394 and 36489 of 2016 and 18652 23169 and 30511 of2018

¶8

WRIT PETITION No: 150 of 2013

¶9

Between:

¶10

P.Narayana Rao, S/o. P.Narsoji Rao, Aged about 78 Years, Occ Retired Service,

¶11

Dr. N.Madhava Rao, S/o. Late N.Kishanji Rao, Aged about 62 years, Occ Retired Service,

¶12

Dr. Uma Maheshwari, W/o. Dr. N.lriladhava Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ Employee,

¶13

All are R/o. 11.No.1-4-2717218, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, (On behalf of NOC Committee)

¶17

2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶18

3 The Special Officer, Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad. 4 M.Bikshapathi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1-41 /2/A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶19

5 M.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, No. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶20

6 M.Anand, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, No. 1-4-1l2tA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶21

Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ: Building Worker, P.Jo. 1-4-1l8lc, Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶22

Shareefa bea, Wo. Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52^years, Occ: Employee Pvt., Ryo. Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶23

Respondent Nos.4 to 8 are impleaded as per C.O. dt. 01.12.2025 in l.A.No.1/2018.

¶24

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of ln,jia praying that in the circumstances stated in the aFfidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No. 1 in refusing the application for building permission in respect of Plot.No. 7, B and 145 forming at of Sy. No. 40. 41 and 42, admeasuring approximately 50C Sq. yards covered by premises No.1-402717217, 1-4-2717218 and 1-4-21t721145, situated at Padmashali Colony. Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, on the ground that the property is a Government land (lNAtVl & A SURPLUS LAND) as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 1+, 1g (1Xg), 21 and 3004 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to process the application of the petitioner for construction of the building in respect of plot No. 7, B and 145 forming pat of Survey No. 40, 41 , and 42 admeasuring approximately 500 Sq. Yards covered by premises No. 1-4-2217217, 1-4-2lfi2t\ and 1-4-271721145. situated at Paclmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, without reference to proceeding of respondent No. 1 dated 22-03-2012 in File No. E1t1114t2012.

¶27

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013{WPMP . NO: 200 OF 2013)

¶28

Petrtion under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings of respondent No. 1 dated 22-03-2012 in File No. E11111412012 pending disposal of the above Writ petition.

¶29

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WVMP. NO: 3883 0F 2014)

¶30

Between:

¶31

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, (On behalf of NOC Committee)

¶32

2 The Special Officer, Competent Authority, Urban Lancl Ceiling, Hyderabad.

¶33

...PET!TIONERS

¶34

AND

¶35

1 P.Narayana Rao, S/o P.Narsoji Rao, Aged about 78 years, Occ Retired Service,

¶36

¶37

2 Dr. N.Madhava Rao, S/o. Late N.Kishanji Rao, Aged about 62 years, Occ Retired Service,

¶38

3 Dr. Uma lvlaheshwari, Wo. Dr. N.Madhava Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ Employee,

¶39

All are R/o. H.No.1-4-2717218, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶40

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶41

(R4 is not necessary party to this petition)

¶42

tVl.Bikshapathi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, Ryo. 1-41/2/A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶43

M.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, No. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶44

M.Anand, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, No. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶45

Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged about 42 yearc, Occ: Building Worker, Rlo. 1-4-1l8lc, Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶46

Shareefa bea, Wo. Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee Pvt., RYo. Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶47

...RESPONDENTS

¶48

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 vacate the interim orders dt. 21-09-2013 passed in WPMP No.20012O13 in W.P.No.150/2013, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶49

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶50

Between:

¶51

1 lV.Bikshapathi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1-41 /2/A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶52

2 M.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, No. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶53

3 M.Anand, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, No. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶54

4 Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ: Building Worker, No. 1 -4-1 l$lc, Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶55

5 Shareefa bea, Wo. Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee Pvt., Fl/o. Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶56

...PETITIONERS

¶57

AND

¶58

1 P.Narayana Rao, S/o. P.Narsoji Rao, Aged about 78 Years, Occ Retired Service,

¶59

¶60

2 Dr. N Mad hava Rao, S/o. Late N.Kishanji Rao, Aged about 62 years, Occ Retired Service,

¶61

3 Dr. Uma lt4aheshwari, W/o Dr. N.lrladhava Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ Employee,

¶62

All are R/o. H.No.1-4-2717218, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶63

The Government of Andhra _Pradesh, Through the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, (On behalf of NOC Committee)

¶64

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by Commissioner, Tank Bund Road. Hyderabad.

¶65

The Special Officer, Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad.

¶66

...RESPONDENTS

¶67

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 Vacate the lnterim Order granted in WP.MP. No. 200 of 2013 in Wp.No.150 of 20'l 3 dated 21 .O9.2013, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶68

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKART

¶69

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 3: SRI CHALAPATHI RAO, GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶70

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDy, SC FOR GHMC

¶71

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 8: SRI D.SRINIVAS

¶72

WRIT PETITION NO: 9240 OF 2015

¶73

Between:

¶74

1 Qr N. lVladhav Rao, S/o. Late N. Krishnaji Rao, Aged about 65 years, Occ Docto r, R/o. H.No. 1 2- 4 -27 t7 21 28, Kav adigida, Hyd eia bad.

¶75

N.Vamshi Krishna, S/o. N. lr/adhav Rao, Aged about 27 years, Occ Student, R/o. H. No. 1 2-4 -27 17 2128. Kavad iguda, Hyderabad.

¶76

...PETITIONERS

¶77

AND

¶78

The State of Telangan.a,. Rqp Oy the Principal Secretary for Revenue, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad - SOO 022.

¶79

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, llyderabad-SO0 001.

¶80

The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad -500 o20.

¶81

The Tahasildar, Secunderabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad - S00 007.

¶82

¶83

[\tl.Bikshapathi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, R/0. 1-4-1 l2l A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶84

M.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶85

lV.Anand, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1 -4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶86

B. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ: Building Worker, R/o. 1-4-1l8lc, Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶87

Shareefa bea, W/o. Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee Pvt., Fl/o. Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶88

Respondent Nos.S to 9 are impleaded as per C.O. dt. 01.12.2025 in l.A.No.1/2018.

¶89

...RESPONDENTS

¶90

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents No.3 and 4 in the subject land and being treated as Government land and they have instructions to distribute the same to landless poor as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (iXg), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and Consequently direct the respondents not to take any steps to deal with plot Numbers 7 and 145 admeasuring 166.66 Sq. Yards and 180 Sq. Yards respectively situated at Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶91

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 12172 OF 2015)

¶92

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings including the dispossession of the petitioners from Plot Numbers 7 and 145 admeasuring 166.66 Sq. Yards and 180 Sq. Yards respectively situated at Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶93

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRIVIJAY B.PAROPAKARI

¶94

¶95

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SR! CHALAPATHI RAO, GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶96

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 9: SRI D.SRINIVAS

¶97

WRIT PETITION NO: 20394 OF 2016

¶98

Between:

¶99

Qr N. Madhav Rao, S/o tate N. Krishnaji Rao, Aged about 66 years, Occ Doctor,

¶100

Dr. Vamshi Krishna, S/o N. Madhav Rao, Aged about 2T years, Occ Student, Both are R/o H.No.1-4-27172128, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶101

..PETITIONERS

¶102

AND

¶103

1 The^State .of^{Telangana,Rep by its PrincipalSecretary,for Revenue,} I elangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶104

2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. The Special Officer and Competent authority, Urban land Ceiling, Nampally, Road, Hyderabad.

¶105

4 The Tahsildar/lVRO, Secunderabad tVlandal, Hyderabad District, Telangana State.

¶106

E M.Biks_hapathi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 ye3rs, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1 -4-1 l2l A. Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶107

6 M.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aqed about 50 years, Occ: Labour, Rlo. 1-4-1t2tA, Bholakilur, Secunderabad.-

¶108

7 M.Anand, Sfo. Narsimha, aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, Rto. 1-4_1t2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶109

.R Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged ab_out 42 years. Occ: Building Worker, FJo.1-4-1/81c. Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti. Bholakpur, Secunder5bad.^{- '}

¶110

I Shareefa bea, W/o. Haroon. Rasheed, aged about 5,2 years, Occ: Employee Pvt., Fl/o. Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶111

Res-ponde_nt_ Nos.s to 9 are impleaded as per C.O. dt. 01.12.2025 in l.A.No.1/2018.

¶112

...RESPONDENTS

¶113

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or any other appropriate directions in the nature of writ of certiorari and after caling for the records connected to the impugned notices dated ---06-2016 quash the same as being iilegar, and inoperative.

¶114

¶115

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 25015 OF 2016 )

¶116

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned notices dated _-06-2016,^pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶117

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI

¶118

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI CHALAPATHI RAO, GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶119

Counsel for the Respondent No.S to 9: SRI D.SRINIVAS

¶120

WRIT PETITION NO: 36489 OF 2016

¶121

Between:

¶122

Dr.N.Madhav Rao, S/o. Late N.Krishnaji Rao, Aged about 66^years, Occ Doctor,

¶123

Dr.Vamshi Krishna, S/o. Sri.N.Madhav Rao, Aged about 27^years, Occ Student,

¶124

Both are R/o.H.No.1-4-27 172128, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad

¶125

...PETITIONERS

¶126

AND

¶127

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Revenue, Secretariat, at Hyderabad

¶128

2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad

¶129

The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Nampally Road, Hyderabad.

¶130

The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad [Vlandal, Hyderabad District -TS

¶131

...RESPONDENTS

¶132

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dt.'t9-10-2016 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles^'14,

¶133

¶134

19(1Xg), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequenily direct the 4th Respondent not to give effect to the impugned proceecings dt.1g-10-2016

¶135

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO:44946 0F 2016)

¶136

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 direct the 4th Respondent not to give effect to the impugned proceedings dt.19-10-2016 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶137

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI

¶138

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI CHALAPATHT RAO, Gp FOR ASSTGNMENT WRIT PETITION NO: 18652 0F 2018

¶139

Between:

¶140

Dr. N.Madhav Rao, S/o Late N. Krishnaji Rao, aged 60 years, Occ. Doctor,

¶141

Dr. Vamshi Krishna, S/o Sri N. Madhav Rao, aged 2t yearc, Occ. Student, Both are R/o H.No.1-4-27172128,^padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶142

...PETITIONERS

¶143

AND

¶144

1 The State.of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary for Home, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶145

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶146

a) The Station House Officer, P.S. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 4 Bikshapathi,. S/o Narasimha, aged major, Ryo Huts in padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Hyderabad.

¶147

Venkatesh, S/o Late Ellaiah, aged 47 yearc, Occ. Centring Contractor, R/o Huts in Padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Hyderabad.

¶148

6 Shareefa B_e9, Wo not known . to the petitioners, aged 60 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o Huts in Padmashali Colony, Bholakpui, Hiderabad'.

¶149

...RESPONDENTS

¶150

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or writs, order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of the respondent, more particularly the action of the llrd respondent in not

¶151

¶152

extending police protection to the petitioners for the construction of a'structure involving stilt + 4 floors over premises No.1-4-27172t7,8 and 145, Padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Hyderabad although permission is already accorded by the respondent No.4 vide construction permission No.59633l01l01l2016lHO dated 16-04-2018 and Permit No.53461 IHOICZICIR-09/2016 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 1g (1) (g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to extend police protecti<ln to petitioners for construction of a structure involving stilt + 4 floors over premises No.1-4-2717217,8 and 145, Padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Hyderabad.

¶153

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶154

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 direct the respondent No.3 to initiate steps u/s 107 Cr.P.C., pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶155

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶156

Between:

¶157

1 tvl.Bikshapathi, S/o Narasimha, aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, R/o 1-41 l2l A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶158

2 Venkatesh, S/o Late Yellaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ. Building Worker, R/o 1-4-1l8lc, Rangareddi Pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶159

3 Shareefa Bee, W/o Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52 years, Occ. Employee Pvt., R/o Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶160

..PETITIONERS

¶161

AND

¶162

1 Dr. N.Madhav Rao, S/o Late N. Krishnaji Rao, aged 68 years, Occ. Doctor, R/o H.No.1 -4-27 172128, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶163

2 Dr. Vamshi Krishna, S/o Sri N. tMadhav Rao, aged 30 years, Occ. Student, R/o H.No.1 -4-27 172128, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶164

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary for Home, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶165

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶166

The Station House Officer, P.S. Musheerabad, Hyderabad

¶167

...RESPONDENTS

¶168

¶169

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in ther circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the lnterim Ordergranted in l.A. No. 1 of 2018 in \A/P No. 18652 of 2018 dated 07.06.2018, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶170

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRIVIJAY B.PAROPAKARI

¶171

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME

¶172

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 6: SRI D.SRINIVAS

¶173

N NO:

¶174

Between

¶175

Dr. N. lVladhav Rao, S/o. Late N. Krishnaji Rao, Aged 66 years, occupation, Doctor,

¶176

Dr. vamshi Krishna, S/o. Sri. N. Madhav Rao, Aged 27 years, occupation. Student,

¶177

Both are R/o. H.No. 1-4-27 172128, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶178

...PETITIONERS

¶179

AND

¶180

1 The state of rela.ngana, Rep. by its Principal s.,3cretary for Revenue, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶181

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad

¶182

The Tahsildar/l/andal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad tV{andal, Hyderabad District, Telangana State.

¶183

tYt Pi!,..-lgpathi, s/o. Narsimha, aged about 62 years, occ: Labour, RJo. 1 -4-1 l2l A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶184

5 $.Ravi,^{S/o. Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: t-abour, R/o} 1-4-1t2tA, Bholakpu r, Secunderabad.

¶185

M.Anand, S/o. Narsim.ha,.aged about 52 years, occ: Labour, R/o. 1-4-1l2tA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶186

venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged ab_out 42 years, occ: Building worker, R/o. 1 -4-1 /8/c, Rangareddi pumpu- Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderibao.

¶187

Qharqeta bea, w/o. Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52 years, occ: Employee Responde-nt- Nos.4 to Srare impleaded as per c.o. dt. 01.12.2025 in l.A.No.3/2018.

¶188

...RESPONDENTS

¶189

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnciia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

¶190

¶191

pleased to issue a Writ or Writs order or direction more particularly"a Writ of ltlandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particulaily the action of the respondent no.3 in seeking to^prevent the^petitioner from^{proceedingwith} the construction on the ground that until and unless the writs covered^by W.P.No.15012013, 924012015, 20394116 and 1865212018 are disposed of^is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g),:21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent no.3 from^preventing the^petitioner from^{proceedingwith} construction plot no's.7, 8 and 145, Padmashali Colony,^Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

¶192

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶193

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^pleasedto direct the Respondents more^particularly the respondent^{no.3 not to interfere} with the construction on the^plots bearing no's 7, 8 and 145 situated^at Padmashali, Colony, Kavadiguda, Secundrabad^pending disposal of the^Writ Petition.

¶194

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶195

Between:

¶196

1 M.Bikshapathi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 62^years, Occ: Labour,^Fl/o. 1 -4-1 l2l A, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶197

2 M.Ravi, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 50^years, Occ: Labour, R/o.^1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶198

3 NI.Anand, S/o. Narsimha, aged about 52^years, Occ:^{Labour,Rl/o. 1-4-1l2lA,} Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶199

4 Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged about 42^years, Occ:^{BuildingWorker,} R/o. 1-4-1l\lc, Rangareddi^pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur,^{Secunderabad.}

¶200

5 Shareefa bea, Wo. Haroon Rasheed, aged about 52^{years,Occ: Employee} Pvt., Fl/o. Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶201

...PETITIONERS

¶202

AND

¶203

1 Dr. N. Madhav Rao, S/o. Late N. Krishnaji Rao, Aged 68 years, Occupation Retired Service, R/o. H.No.1-4-27172128, Padma Shari Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶204

¶205

2 N.Vamshi Krishna, S/o. Dr. Sri. N.Madhav Rao, Aqed 30 vears. Occuoation. Student, Rl/o. H.No.1-4-27172128, Padma Shdri Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶206

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Revenue, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶207

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad

¶208

The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, Telangana State.

¶209

...RESPONDENTS

¶210

Petition under Section 15'l .CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the lnterim Orders granted in WP No. 23169 of 2018 dated 06.07.201g, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶211

lA NO: 4 OF 2018

¶212

Between:

¶213

1 The State of Telangana,. Rep. by its^principal Secretary for Revenue. Telangana Secretariat, Hyderakiad.

¶214

2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Slation Road, Hyderabad

¶215

3 The Tahsildar/Mandal .Revenue Officer, Secunderatrad Mandal, Hyderabad District, Telangana State.

¶216

...PETITIONERS

¶217

AND

¶218

1 Dr. N. Madhav Rao, S/o. Late N. Krishnaii Rao, Aqed 66 vears. Occuoation Doctor. R/o. H.No.1 -4-27 17 2/28, Kavad iguila, Hyderi bad.'

¶219

2 Dr. Vamshi Krishna, S/o. Sri. N. Madhav Rao, Aqed 27 vears. Occuoation Student. R/o. H.No.1-4-27172128, Kavadiguda, Hyd6rabad.

¶220

1. M.Bikshapathi, S/o. Narsimha, _aged about 62 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 1 -4-1 l2l A. Bholakpur, Secunderaba-d.

¶221

4 V..n.ryi,^{S/o_ Narsimha, aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour,No. 1-4-1t2tA,} Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶222

6 M..Anand, S/o. Narsimha,. aged about 52 years, Occ: Labour, Rto. 1-4-1t2lA, Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶223

Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged ahgut 42 years, Occ: Building Worker, FJo.1-4-1l1lc, Rangareddi pumpu Bavi, Basti, Bholakpur, Secunderdbad.^{'- '}

¶224

7 Shareefa !ea, Wo. Haroon.Rasheed, aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee Pvt., R/o. Bholakpur, Secunderabad.

¶225

...RESPONDENTS

¶226

¶227

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 vacate the interim orders dated 06-07-2018 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No 23169 of 2018 and dismiss the writ petition, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶228

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI

¶229

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI CHALAPATHI RAO, GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶230

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 8: SRI D.SRINIVAS

¶231

WRIT PETITION NO: 30511 OF 2018

¶232

Between:

¶233

Dr. N. tMadhava Rao, S/o Late N. Krishnaji Rao, aged about 65 years, Occ. Doctor,

¶234

Sri N. Vamsi Krishna, S/o Dr. N. tMadhava Rao, aged about 30 years, Occ. Student,

¶235

Both are Rl/o H.No.1 2-4-27 172128, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

¶236

..PETITIONERS

¶237

AND

¶238

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

¶239

2 Office of the Commissioner of Land Administration, Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶240

3 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.

¶241

4 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.

¶242

5 The Tahsildar/tr/andal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad Mandal, Hyderabad District.

¶243

6 Bikshapathi, S/o Narsimha, Aged 62 years, Occ. Labour, R/o 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Hyderabad.

¶244

7 [\I.Ravi, S/o Narsimha, Aged 50 years, Occ. Labour, Rl/o 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Hyderabad.

¶245

8 N/. Anand, S/o Narsimha, aged 52 years, Occ. Labour, R/o 1-4-1l2lA, Bholakpur, Hyderabad.

¶246

Venkatesh, S/o late Ellaiah, Aged 47^years, Occ. Centring Contractor.

¶247

l0.Shareefa Bee, Wo not known to petitioners, aged 60 years, Occ. Employee, I & 10 are R/o. Huts in Padmashali Colony, Bholakpur, Hyderabad.

¶248

¶249

..RESPONDENTS

¶250

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction rnore particularly one in the nature of \l/rit of Mandamus declaring that all the proceedings giving rise to appeal No.HYD/2111987 from the proceedings under Section B (4) to 10 (O) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act as null and void and in operative and not binding and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith drop all the proceedings from Section 8 (a) to 10 (6) of the Urban Land Ceiting Act.

¶251

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶252

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent No.5 from interfering with the petitioner's construction over Plot No.7. 8 and 145 forming part of Sy.Nos.4O,41 and 42 admeasuring approximately 500 sq. yards covered by premises No.1.4-2717217, 1-4-2Tl72tg and 1-4-271721145, situated at Padmashali Colony, Kervadiguda, Hyderabad. pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶253

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI

¶254

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI CHALAPATHI RAo, Gp FoR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶255

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶256

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶257

WRIT PETITION Nos.lSO of 2O13, 924O of 2O15, 2O394 and 36489 of 2O16 and 18652,23169 and 3O511 of 2O18

¶258

Dated: O1.12.2O25

¶259

Between

¶260

P. Narayana Rao and others.

¶261

PETITIONERS

¶262

And

¶263

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District and others.

¶264

...RESPONDENTS

¶265

COMMON ORDER:

¶266

Since all these writ petitions relate to a cornmon property and connected with Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings in Appeal No.Hyd/21!L987, they petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶267

WP.No.30511 of 2018 is a comprehensive writ petition filed challenging the urban Iand ceiling^proceedings issued under Sections 8(4) and 8(6) of the Urban Land^(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, Lg76 (for short'ULC Act') in Appea! No.Hyd/2L1L987 dated 19.02.2003.

¶268

WP.No.150 of 2013 is filed challenging the Endorsement No.E111114/2OL2 dated 22.03.2OL2 issued by the Joint^Collector,

¶269

¶270

¶271

Hyderabad, on behalf of Noc committee, in rejecting the request of the petitioners for issuance of Noc for approval of building plan for construction in land bearing Municipat Nos.1-4-27/72/1, L-427/72/8 and r-4-27/72/L4s, padmashali colony, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

¶272

wP.No.924o of 2oLs is filed to declare ther action of the respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal and respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Secunderabad Mandal, in treating the subject land as Government land and trying to distribute the land to landless poor as being violative of Articles L4, lg(lxg) anrJ 300_4 of the Constitutir>n of India.

¶273

WP.Nos.2O3g4 and 364g9 of 2OL6 are filed r:hallenging the notices dated Nit.06.2016 and 19.10.2016 respectively whereby the petitioners were informed that the subject land in their possession has been determined as surplus and the same has been taken over by the Government under section 10(6) of the uLC Act and requested the petitioners to file an application under G.o.Ms.No.g2 Revenue (uLC) Department dated 26.os.2oL6 for regularization of surplus land in their possession.

¶274

wp.No.23169 of 201g is fired chailenging the action of the respondent No.3 - Tahsirdar, Secunderabad Mandar,, in seeking to

¶275

¶276

prevent the petitioners from proceeding with construction in respect of the subject propefty.

¶277

WP.No.18562 of 2018 is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.3 - Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, in not extending police protection to the petitioners for construction of building in the subject propefty.

¶278

For the sake of convenience, the facts in WP.No.30511 of 2018, are set out hereunder: (a) The wife of the petitioner No.1 purchased the subject propefty, i.e. Plot No.8, admeasuring 166.66 sq. yards in the name of her minor daughter, N. Vasundara, under a registered sale deed dated 17.08.1996 bearing Document No.1550/1996. After obtaining permission from the respondent No.2, the wife of the petitioner No.1 constructed a building comprising of G+1 in which they are running a 10 bedded Nursing Home under the name and style "Vasundara Nursing Home". Later, the petitioner No.1, his wife and daughter purchased Plot No.7 in the name of Sri. P. Narayan Rao under a registered sale deed dated Ni1.03.2003 bearing Document No.7012003. Similarly, Sri. Narayan Rao and petitioner No.1 purchased an extent of 240 sq. yards covered by Plot No.145, partly in the name of Sri. Narayan Rao and partly in their name.

¶279

¶280

All these three^plots are in^{compact block wherein the Nursing} Home is constructed and^{beingrun by the petitioners.}

¶281

(b) It is stated that the land admeasuring^{Ac.6.09guntas in} Sy.Nos.40, 41 and 42, of^{Padmashali Co.lony,Kavadiguda,} Hyderbad, was originally classified^{as Inam land. Basingon the} application made by the^{PadmashaliCo-operative llousing Society} Limited (for short^'the Society') under^{Section B read with Section} 10 of the A.P.^(Telangana Area)^{Abolition of InamsAct,1965,} Occupancy Right Certificate was^{granted by the RerrenueDivisional} Officer, Hyderabad Western Division^{in File No.All1281L976dated} 03.12. 1977. Thereafter, mutation of the^{subjecl: property was} effected by the Thasildar, Secunderabad^{in File No.F1lLl86LlL977} dated 30.12.t977. The Society applied^{to the thenHyderabad} Municipal Corporation for approval and sanction^{of layout covering} the entire extent of Ac.6.09^{guntas. The Special Officer, Municipal} Corporation of Hyderabad^{(Town PlanningSection) inhis} Proceedings dated 31.05.^L977 addressed to the^{President of} Society, asked to demarcate the roads,^{plots anrl boundaries in} accordance with the revised and^{corrected lalrqul' Thethen} Government of Andhra Pradesh in^{accordance wittt G.OMs.No.836} Municipal Administration dated 07.LO.Lg7B favourably^considered the request of the Society to relax the rules under the MCH layout Rules, 1965 and the Building Laws 1972. It is stated that when the

¶282

,
(

¶283

¶284

petitioners intended to apply fOr new building permission, the MCH insisted the petitioners to get NOC from the NOC Committee chaired by the loint Collector, Hyderabad

¶285

(c) It is stated that on enquiries by the Petitioners, it was revealed that the Society had filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regutation) Act, t976^(for short 'the ULC Act'), claiming among other lands, the land in Sy.Nos.39 to^42, on the basis of the ORC granted by the Tribunal under the Abolition of Inams Act. The layout of the Society was declared surplus. The Society carried the matter in Appeal under Section 33 of the Act before the Commissioner of Appeals registered as^Appeal No.Hyd/211L987. The appeal was dismissed on 19.02.2003. However, the Society did not^question the order of the^Appellate authority.

¶286

(d) It is stated that WP.No.8729 of 2003 was filed by the Vasudevamma Charitable Trust challenging the order^dated 19.02.2003 of the Appellate authority and this Court^granted status-quo on 02.05.2003. A counter was filed by the^Special Thasildar, Zone-II, wherein it is clearly averred that "in^{view of the} status-quo granted by this Hon'ble Court further^{proceedings in} respect of the land could not be taken up". In the^meanwhile, the ULC Act was repealed on 27.03.2008. As^possession was^not

¶287

¶288

¶289

taken, WP.No.8729 of 2003 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated L6.02.20L2.

¶290

(e) It is stated that the respondents, allegedly, have taken possession on 27.03.2008, the date on which, the ULC Act was repealed and even when status-quo order paised in WP.No.8729 of 2003 was in force. The alleged surplus land was not at all inspected on ground and a paper panchanama was conducted. The alleged notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued to the GPA of the Declarant and not to the possessors including the petitioners. The respondent authorities were aware that the Society was agitating its rights in Appeal No.Hyd/21/t987, but neither the Society nor any of its members were issued noticr: under Section 10(5) of the Act. The respondent No.5 has issued notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, which was challenged in in WP.No"26703 of 2018 wherein status quo order was passed.

¶291

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 in WP.No.150 of 2OL3, it is stated that that the President of Padmashali Cooperative Housing Society and one P. Visweswara Reddy, GPA of B. Ranga Reddy, who was recordecl as Inamdar in Column No.2O of T.S.L.R, filed a statement in Form I in CC.No.H1/L258t/76 and H2/L395U76 declarinq the land in sy.Nos.39 to 42 and 77, 78 of Bolakpur village. As per the revenue records, above survey numbers stand as patta lands in the name of

¶292

/ r'

¶293

¶294

Sri B. Ranga Reddy. As M/s. Padmashali Cooperative^Housing Society failed to^produce any documentary evidence in support^of their claim, the total extent of the land declared^{was computed to} the holding of Sri. B. Ranga Reddy and draft orders under^Section 8(1) of the ULC Act were issued determinlng^{1,80,821.83sq.} meters in excess of the ceiling limits.

¶295

It is stated that in response to the^{draft statement under} Section 8 (1) and notice under^Section 8(3)^{of the ULCAct,} objections were filed by Sri B. Vijaya Reddy,^{LR of late B' Ranga} Reddy, Sri Vishveshwar Reddy,^GPA and^{LR of late B. Ranga Reddy;} and trustee of Vasudevamma Charitable^{Trust, Sri P. Bala Narsaiah} and Sri T.A Chary, President of M/s^{PadmashaliCooperative} Housing Society. Objections raised by the^{declarantsand other} persons were examined on their merits. The objection^petitioners did not produce any record or^{evidence in supportof their claims.} Therefore, the draft statement under^{Section8(1) of the ULCAct} was confirmed without any^{alterations and final orders under} Section 8(4) and final^{statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act} were issued vide^{proceedingsdated30.09.1986 declaringthe} declarants as excess holders to^{an extent of 1,08,821-83Sq.}

¶296

meters.

¶297

¶298

It is stated that later the case was processed further and notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued and got published in AP Gazette No.102 dated 04.05.1987 and declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was also i:;sued and got published in AP Gazette No.139 dated L4.07.L9t17 vesting the surplus land with the Government free from all encumbrances. Later, possession of the land was taken over under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act on 27.03.2008 under cover of panchanama to an extent of 64,964.26 sq. meters, which includes the land of the writ petitioners.

¶299

L2. It is stated that the request of petitioners for issue of No Objection Certificate was rejected by the Commit.tee Constituted under G.O.Ms.No.zLLl, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 05.12.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.93, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 28.01-2006 in the meeting held on 13.03.2OL2 and Endorsement No.E1l1L14/2OI2 dated 22.O3.2012 was issued rejecting request of the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners have not filed any application for regularization of land under relevant GO's before Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC. In respect of the averments that no appeal was filed before appellate authority and also appeal against o.s.No.L314 of 2009 it is submitted that this respondent is not a pafty in those cases.

Mr. Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for the^petitioners, submitted that the impugned^proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. It is not in dispute that the^petitioners areⁱⁿ possession of the subject land, which is evident from the notices Ni1.06.2016 and 19.10.2016 (subject matter of^{WP.Nos.20394 and} 36489 of 2016) wherein^possession of the^{petitionerswas} admitted. There is building constructed in the subject^propefty. Physical possession was not taken from the^{petitioners.Statusquo} order granted in WP.No.8729 of 2003 was in force as^on 27.03.2008. Even if the vendors of the^{petitioners, Society, has not} filed any writ petition, it is relevant to state that^{WP.No.8729 of} 2003 was filed by one G. Vijaya Reddy, challenging^commonorder dated 19.02.2003 in Appeal Nos.Hyd/20l198^{and HVdl2LlL987.} Status quo order was^granted in respect of the^{entirepropefty} belonging to the original declarant. In view of the^{status quo order,} possession was not taken as admitted in the counter in WP.No.150 of 2013. The alleged^panchanama is a^{fictitious document. Notice} under Section 10(5) of the^ULC Act has not been^{issuedto the} petitioners, who are, admittedly, in^possession. Further, there is^no document filed by the respondent^{authorities to showthat notice} under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act has^{been issued to the} declarants and^possessors of the subject^{property. Thus, the} impugned orders are^liable to^be set aside.

¶304

¶305

¶306

L4. Mr. Chalapathi^{Rao, learnedGovernment Pleaderfor} Assignment, submitted^{that neither the petitioners nor their} vendors have chosen^{to file a writ petitionchallenging the common} order dated 19.02.2003^{inAppeal No:.HttdlzolL98and} Hvdlzt/1.987. The^{writ petition was filed only by the appellantin} Appeal No.Hyd/211t987^{and status quo orderpassedtherein would} be applicable only to^{him and not to the petitioners or their vendors} -^Society.

¶307

Discussion and Analysis:

¶308

It is borne out from^{the record that WP.No.8'.729 of 2003filed} by Vasudevamma^{charitableTrust and Vishr,,eshwar Reddy,} s/o. Ranga Reddy,^{challengingthecommonorder dated} 19.02.2003 in commissioner^{AppealsProg.No.HYD/2O & 2t187} passed by the court of the commissioner,^{Appeals,office of the} Chief Commissioner of^{Land Administration,Hyclerabad.On the} statement by the learned^{counselfor the petitioners that no further} orders are^{necessaryto be passed, the writ petitionwas dismissed} by order dated t6.02.2O12.^{In the counter filed irr WP.No.8729 of} 2003, Ex.P7, at Para 8, it^{was stated that draft statement under} section 8(1) of the utc^{Act was confirmed on 30.09.1986;} the declarant was held to^{be surplus holder iEo an extent of} 108821.83 sq. meters; the declaration^{under Section 10(3) of the} ULC Act was published on L4.O7.t987; the^{entire surplusland}

¶309

¶310

Vested with the Government free from^{all encumbrances and that in} view of the status quo order^granted by this Court,^{proceedingsin} respect of the land could not be taken^up.

¶311

The counter was filed on 01:06.2007^{alolg with vacate stay} petition. The ULC Act was repealed in the State of^{AP with effect} from 27.03.2008. As^possession was,^{admittedly, not taken,the} counsel for the^petitioners in^{WP.No.8729of 2003 reported before} this Court that no orders are^{necessary and as stated above, the} writ petition was dismissed on^16.02.2OL2.

¶312

Learned Government Pleader^{for Assignment did not rebut} the statement of the learned^{counsel for the petitionersthat the} ULC proceedings, which culminated^{in the order dated19.02.2003} in Appeal Nos.Hyd/20 and 2U87, so^{far as other appellants} (Vasudevamma Charitable Trust represented by its^Trustee, Vishveshwar Reddy and B.^{VishveshwarReddy, S/o. B. Ranga} Reddy) stood abated by virtue of^{section 4 of the Repeal Act.} Thus, it is clear that the^{land in possessionof the petitioners in} WP.No.8729 of 2003^{was not taken, which is evidentfrom para 8 of} the counter affidavit therein.

¶313

It is surprising to note that the^{respondentNo.1 though} assefted that they have^{taken possessionof the subjectland from} the petitioners on^{27.03.2008 (date of repeal of ULC Act in the}

,.1

state of AP), no details of service of notice under siection 10(5) of the ULC Act are mentioned in the counter affidavit. In para a(ii) of the counter, it is stated that Section 10(1) notification was issued on 04.05 .1987; declaration was issued and got published on L4.o7.LgBg7 and possession was taken over under section 10(6) of the ULC Act on 27.O3.2OO8.

¶318

The record in HzlL395t/76 produced by the learned Governmr:nt Pleader for Assignment has been verified by this court and it is found that section 10(5) notice dated 2s.oz.zoo8 (page No.1471),. though prepared in the name of Vishweshwar Reddy, has not been dispatched. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that notice has been dispatched through registered .post or served on the declarant/family members/legal heirs in person. Further, as stated in para 15 above, it is clear that possession has not been taken from the petitioners in Wp.No.8729 of 2003.

¶319

The record does not disclose that any Sectirrn 10(5) notice has been issued in the name of the petitioners or their vendors. Thus, it is very much apparent that the respon<1ent authorities could not take possession of the subject land as sLatus quo order dated 02.05.2003 was passed in respect of both apprears i.e. Appeal Nos.Hydl20 and 2LlB7 filed by B. vishweshwar Reddy and M/s. Padmasali co-operative House Building Society, respectively.

¶320

r' /

¶321

¶322

2t. It has been held by the Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. HARf RAM1 that notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act is mandatory and the relevant paras are extracted

¶323

hereunder

¶324

Sub-section (5) of Section 10, for the first time, speaks of "possession" which says where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person, who may be in possession of it to surrender or transfer possession to the State Government or to any other person, duly authorized by the State Government.

¶325

If de facto possession has already passed on to the State Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) to Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression "where any land is vested" under sub- section (5) to Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) to Section 10 can be voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided under Section 11 of the Act early. Once there is no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in writing under sub-section (5) to Section 10 to surrender or deliver possession. Subsection (5) of Section 10 visualizes a situation of surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession.

¶326

Fo rcefu I d ispossessio n

¶327

The Act provides for forceful dispossession but only when a person refuses or fails to comply with an order

'(zor)4^{scc 280}

i
I
t

under sub-section⁽⁵⁾ of^{Section 10. Sub-section(6) to} Section 10 again speaks of^{"possession" which says, if any} person refuses or fails to comply with the order^madeunder sub- section (5), the^{competentauthorityn.laytake} possession of the vacant land to be^given to the^State Government and for that^{purpose, force -as may be} necessary - can be used. Sub-section^{(6), therefore,} contemplates a situation of a^{personrefusing c,r fails to} comply with the order under sub-^{section (5), in the event} of which the competent authority^{may take possessionby} use of force. Forcible dispossession^{of the land, thr:refore,is} being resorted only in a situation^{which falls under} sub-section (6) and not under^{sub-section(5) to Section10.} Sub-sections (5) and^(6), therefore,^{take care of boththe} situations, i.e. taking^possession by^{givingnotice thatis} "peaceful dispossession" and on failure to surrender^{or give} delivery of possession under Section^{10(5), than "forceful} dispossession" under sub-section^{(6) of Section10''}

¶332

The requirement of^giving notice urrder^sub- sections (5) and (6) of Sectron 10^{is mandatory. Though the} word 'may' has been used therein, the word^{'may' in both} the sub-sections has to be understood^{as "shall"}

¶333

because a court charged with the task of^{enftlrcing the} statute needs to decide the^{consequencesthat the} legislature intended to follow from failure to^implementthe requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under^sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it mlght^result the land holder being dispossessed^without notice, therefore, the word 'may' has to be^{read as 'shall'."}

¶334

In view of the above discussion, as Section^{10(5) notice and} Section 10(6) order has not been served on the^{petitioners and} moreover, as the notice dated 19.10.2016 and notices dated

¶335

/^/

¶336

¶337

Ni1.06.2016 (wP.Nos.2o394 and 36489 of 2016) beyond doubt prove petitioners are in physical and actual possession of the subject lands, this court does not have any hesitation to hold that the alleged panchanama dated 27.03.2008 is a paper possession and illegal. Since the possession of the subject iand has not been taken over from the petitiohers, the ULC proceedings so far as subject land is concerned stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.

¶338

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the proceedings No.E1l11L4/20L2 dated 22.O3.2OL2, proceedings dated 19.10.2016 and notices dated Ni|.06.2016 are quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the building applications of the petitioners without reference to the ULC proceedings in CC. N o.H2/ L395L/76.

¶339

The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶340

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶341

That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The Chief Justice on this Monday, the First Day of December, Two Thousand and Twenty Five.

¶342

SD/.MOHD. ISM UTY

¶343

SECTION OFFICER

¶344

//TRUE COPY/

¶345

To, 1. The Principal Secretary for Revenue, Telangan retariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana - 500 022. "

¶346

The Principal Secretary for Home, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶347

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad tVunicipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶348

I l t ii ll

¶349

¶350

The Special^{officerand competent authority, urban Land ceiling' Nampally'}

¶351

s. ff:t#*:::i"Xt,^{or po,ce, Hyderabad citv, Basheerbagh,Hvderabad .} 6. The^{Chief Commissioner, Office oi tn" Commissio'''"ioil'nd Administration' /} NamPallY, The Joint^{HYderabad'Hyderabad District, Government of Telangana' (on behalf}

¶352