IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

WRIT PETITION No.34951 OF 2015

Between:

S.Krishna Reddy and others

… Petitioners

And

The State of Telangana and others

… Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03. 06.2024

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes

may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes

marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

____________ ________________

MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

2

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

WRIT PETITION No.34951 OF 2015

% 03.06.2024

Between:

# S.Krishna Reddy and others

… Petitioners

And

$ The State of Telangana and others

… Respondents

< Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr S.Srinivas Reddy

^ Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5 : G.P. for Revenue

^Counsel for respondents 6 and 7: P.Ramakrishna

? Cases Referred:

1. (1995) Suppl.(1) SCC 596

2. 2007 (10) SCC 448

3. 2010 (10) SCC 43

4. 2011(7) SCC 639

5. 2011(10) SC 404

6. 2011(9) SCC 354

7. 2013(1) SCC 353

8. (2017) SCC Online Hyd 426

9. 2021 SCC Online SC 3422

10. (1936) L.R.63 Ind.AP 372

11. AIR 1960 SC 801

12. (2022) 7 SCC 508

13. (2020) 2 SCC 69

14. (2023) Livelaw (SC) 302

15. (2020) 8 SCC 129

16. 2005 (7) SCC 67

3

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

HON’BLE MRS . JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION No.34951 OF 2015

ORDER:

Heard learned Senior Designate C ounsel Sri

S.Srinivas Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner,

and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf

of the respondent No.1 to 5 and Sri P.Ramakrishna,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial

respondent Nos.6 to 8.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking the

prayer as under:

“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring the land acquisition proceedings, if any, said to

have been initiated against part of the land admeasuring

Acres 15-84 Cents in Survey Nos. 435 and 436 situated

Kaukuntla at Village, Devarakadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar

District belonging to the petitioners, as void and lapsed,

contrary to law and further declaring the action of the

respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from

the said land, as highhanded, arbitrary, illegal, unjust,

malafide, without jurisidction, violative of the Fundamental

and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to us under the

Constitution of India as well as in violation of principles of

natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents

4

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

not to interfere with our peaceful possession and

enjoyment over the aforesaid extent of land and pass such

other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case and pass.”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD.

A) The counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5, in

particular, paras 3 and 5, read as under:

“3. In reply to Paras 2 to 4 of the affidavit, it is humbly

submitted that, as per the Kha sra Pahani 1954-55 the

lands bearing Sy. No. s 435 & 436 of Koukuntla (V) of

Devarakadra (M) stands Patta in the name of Sri. Raja

Rameshwar Rao. As per the 1979 Old ROR of Koukuntla

(V), Devarakadra (M), the writ petitioners /their

predecessors were having the land as detailed below.

1) Sri. Santhamgari Hanmi Reddy S/o Sri. Thimma Reddy

had an extent of Ac. (5-20) Gts in Sy. No. 435/AA, 2) Sri.

Santhamgari Pedda Kondanna & Sri. Chinna Kondanna

both S/o Sri. Sunkappa and Sri. Pedda Venkat Reddy & Sri.

Chinna Venkat Reddy both S/o Sri. Laxmaiah have an

extent of Ac. (1-36) Gts & Ac. (3-24) Gts in Sy. No. 435/E

& 436/A, respectively and 3) Sri. Santhamgari Chinna

Reddy S/o Shanker Reddy had an extent of Ac. (2 -31) Gts

in Sy. No. 436/AA, Koukuntla (V), Devarakadra Mandal.

Out of the above lands, the Government has

acquired an extent of Ac. (04- 00) Gts in Sy. No. 435/AA,

Ac. (1-36) Gts in Sy. No. 435/E, Ac. (3-24) Gts in Sy No.

436/A and an extent of Ac. (3-14) Cents in Sy. No. 436/AA

5

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

to an total extent of Ac. (12-64) Cents, Koukuntla (V),

Devarakadra (M) for providing house sites to the needy

weaker section people of Koukuntla (V), Devarakadra (M)

vide the Tahsildar, Atmakur file No. D2/3006/1984 and the

writ petitioners / their predecessors had received the

payment of compensation vide the Land Acquisition Officer

& Tahsildar, Atmakur Form C No. D2/3006/1984, Dt: -06-

1985. Since then the above lands are vested in

Government and the same were allotted to (206)

beneficiaries of Koukuntla (V), Devarakadra (M). Therefore

the contention of the writ petitioners that they continued

possession over the suit lands is not correct and not

supported by any documentary evidence. The writ

petitioner No. 1 & 2, only having an extent of Ac. (0-30)

Gts each (i.e.) total to an extent of Ac. (01-20) Gts in Sy.

No. 435/AA and the remaining suit land has been acquired

by the Government long back and they are not in

possession and enjoyment over suit land. Further, it is

submitted that, the details of acquisition of the above lands

were not carried out in the connected Revenue Records by

oversight and taking the advantage of the same the writ

petitioners herein suppressing the acquisition of their lands

with a malafide intention affected the mutation to grab the

land which belonged to the Government.

5. It is submitted that, the above suit lands, except Ac. (1-

20) Gts in Sy. No. 435/AA have been acquired by the

Government for the purpose of providing House sites to

the weaker section people of Koukuntla (V), Devarakadra

6

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

(M). The writ petitioners have been never in possession of

the above lands at any point of time after 1984.

B)

The Reply affidavit filed by the petitioner , in

particular, para 5 is extracted hereunder:

“5. I submit that the allegations made in un- numbered

Paragraph 1 Page No.3 of the Counter Affidavit are not

true and correct. The allegation that the Government has

acquired part of the land out of the land belonging to us for

providing house sites to the needy weaker section people

of Kaukuntla Village is not true and correct. I once again

reiterate the averments made in Writ Affidavit that we

have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the

subject lands from several decades and we have also been

issued pattadar pass books and title deeds by the then

Mandal Revenue Officer, Devarakadra Mandal. Under the

circumstances, it is not open to the Respondents to seek to

dispossess us under the specious plea that the

Government acquired the land from us in the year 1984

that too without making available documents of alleged

acquisition. The action of the 4th Respondent is therefore

highly arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction,

violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights

guaranteed to us under the Constitution of India, as well as

in violation of principles of natural justice. The further

allegations that the details of acquisition of the above lands

were not carried out in the connected revenue records by

oversight, that taking the advantage of the same the writ

petitioners herein are suppressing the acquisition of their

7

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

lands that with a malafide intention got affected the

mutation to grab the land which belong to the Government

are not true and correct. In fact, our names and the names

of our predecessors have been continuously recorded in

the revenue records from the last several decades.

Assuming without admitting, the Government has issued

notification for acquiring our land way back in the year

1984, the Government cannot now seek to take possession

of subject land from us after a lapse of 35 years basing on

preliminary proceedings that too without passing an Award

and without paying compensation. Further, the entire

preliminary acquisition proceedings reflect a complete and

total non- application of mind by the Respondents and the

same is not permissible and hence the entire acquisition

proceedings if any are void.

C) Panchanama, dated 05.09.2015 reads as under:

S.

No.

Name of

Punch

Father’s

name

Age Caste Occupation Address

1. Papigani

Anjaneyulu

Kurmaiah 42 BC Agrl. Kowkuntla

2. Deshtti

Ranganna

S/o

Ramulu

61 BC Agrl. -do-

3. Gandla

Harigopal

Sivaraj 70 BC Surpanch -do-

“We, three are the punchus, on the call of Rev enue

Inspectors and Village Revenue Officer we have attended

at the Grama Panchayat Office. And took oath in the name

of God, that we will tell only truth but no lie.

8

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

As per the Santhamgari Krishna reddy S/o. Shanireddy

R/o. Koukuntla's application submitted in High Court, and

the Tahsildar's Memo No. C/4668/2015, dated: 0 3-09-

2015, we went on the land, and made enquiry, that The

land in Sy.no. 435, of K oukuntla Grama Sivaru. The

application Samthamgari Krishna Reddy S/o. Hanmireddy,

patta lands were sold at about 25 years ago, for B.C. Plots.

Later, the Government divided that land into plots and

issued pattards to the public. But did not give pos session

to them. In the year 1984 government issued Residential

place certificate. From 1984 to till now, n o one has been

cultivating that land. The land is still laid idle. When this

panchanama was read over to us, we believe it true and

we signed.

This panchanama was prepared in our presence.”

S.

No.

Name of Punch Father’s

name

Age Caste Occupation Address

1. Khaja

Mynuddin

Abdul

Rahim

59 Minority Tailor Koukuntla

2. Bhureddy

Ramachandaiah

Bhureddy 48 BC -

Golla

Agrl. -do-

3. Surkka

Hanmanth

Kurmaiah 65 BC-65 Agrl. -do-

We, three are the punchus, on the call of Addl. Revenue

Officer and Village Revenue Officer we have attended at

the Grama Panchayat Office. On the complaint of

Tammareddy S/o. Venkatrama reddy and others, in

respect of the the prajavani complaint we went there.

The land at the Sivaru of Koukuntala in Sy.no. 434 and

435, and extent of 12.26 patta lands was purchase by

9

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

Government for the purpose of House sites for B.C. and

the Government has also issued pattas. But the Pattadars

made application through Prajavani that their patta lands

have been illegally cultivating by some persons . In this

connection, when we went on the lands and conducted

survey, the land in Sy. No. 434 and 435, since the day of

purchasing land by Government, no one has been

cultivating the land. Since then the land is in idle. It is

stated by the punchus. On 19 -10-2014, since the

Government gave pattas in that land to the beneficiaries,

the beneficiaries removed that thorn bushes with the help

of JCB. It was stated by the Punchus.

The punchus stated that the beneficiaries at about 10

persons in the presence of Punchus, removed the tho rn

bushes in the said land.

4.

The case of the petitioner as per the av erments

made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the

petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as

under:

a) It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners

are in continuous possession of land to an extent of Ac.15.84

cents in Sy.No.435/AA, 435/E, 435/U, 435/UU, 435/LU, 436/U,

436/UU, 436/UU1, 436/RU and 436/RUU situated at Kaukuntla

Village, Devarakadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The

aforesaid land is ancestral properties of the Petitioners and the

10

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

names of the Petitioners and the names of their ancestors are

shown in the revenue records.

b) Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 have been issued pattadar pass books

and title deeds in respect of lands belonging to them by the

4

th

Respondent herein. In so far as, Petitioner Nos. 7 to 9 are

concerned, Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds are pledged with

the Bank for obtaining loans.

c) Further, in the month of April 2015, when the 1

st

Petitioner

sought to gift, an extent of Ac.02-75 Cents in Survey No.435/E

of Kaukuntla Village in favour of his daughter, Smt.S. Madhavi

under Document dated 02.04.2015, the same was refused to be

registered by the Sub- Registrar, Atmakur on the ground that the

extent of Ac. 16-25 Cents in Survey No.435 and 436 of

Kaukuntla Village is included in the prohibitory list which was

forwarded by the 4th Respondent in the year 2012.

d) Aggrieved by the same the 1

st

Petitioner filed W.P.

No.28664 of 2015 before this Court against and the same is still

pending. On 19.10.2015, a group of people in the Village,

namely, Sri Uppari Gopal, S/o.Pochanna and 6 others along with

their associates came to the petitioners’ lands and tried to

11

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

trespass into the lands and dispossess the petitioners forcibly.

However, while leaving they stated that, they have the support

of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 8 herein and that they would come

back with sufficient manpower and dispossess the petitioners.

e) The Petitioners immediately addressed a complaint dated

19.10.2015 to the Devarakadra Police Station bringing to their

notice of the above high-handed action of Sri Uppari Gopal and

others. However, the Police did not receive or register their

complaint.

f) Thereafter, a representation dated 19.10.2015 was

addressed by the petitioners to the 4

th

Respondent bringing to

his notice about the abovementioned incident and sought for

providing protection. Subsequently, the 4

th

Respondent gave the

petitioners copies of letter addressed by 5

th

Respondent and

Revenue Inspector to the 4

th

Respondent dated 05.09.2015

stating that the land belonging to the petitioners was purchased

by the Government for providing house sites to backward classes

in the year 1984, that the said land is shown as "Padava"

(barren). However, the land has not been allotted to the

beneficiaries nor possession has been given. Alongside, a

12

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

Panchanama dated 05.09.2015 was also given, setting out the

aforesaid information.

g) It is pertinent to mention that the Respondent nos. 4 and 5

by virtue of pressure and influence brought about by the 8

th

Respondent and for extraneous considerations, fabricated the

aforesaid letter and Panchanama which is highly arbitrary, illegal

and unjust. Subsequently, the petitioners approached

Respondent Nos. 4 and 7 and requested them to furnish copies

of the alleged documents of purchase by the Government.

However, they informed that no such record is available with

them.

h) On the other hand, the petitioners were issued pattadar

pass books & title deeds and have obtained loans from the

Banks, pledging their title deeds on various occasions. Neither

the petitioners nor their ancestors have ever sold any part of the

subject land to the Government as alleged and if the

Government requires the subject land for any public purpose,

it is always open to it to acquire the same under the provisions

of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

13

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

i) However, without following the due procedure under the

abovementioned Act, the petitioners we re sought to be

dispossessed high handedly. Under these circumstances, it is not

open to the Respondents to dispossess the petitioners under the

specious plea that the Government purchased the land from the

petitioners in the year 1984 that too without making available

the documents of alleged sale. Thus, action of the Respondents

is therefore highly arbitrary and illegal. Hence this Writ Petition.

4. The counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2,

is as follows:

a) As per the 1979 Old ROR of the Petitioners or their

predecessors were having the land as detailed below.1) Sri.

Santhamgari Hanmi Reddy S/o Sri. Thimma Reddy had an extent

of Ac. 5-20 Cents in Sy. No. 435/AA, 2) Sri. Santhamgari Pedda

Kondanna& Sri.Chinna Kondanna both S/o Sri. Sunkappa and

Sri. Pedda Venkat Reddy & Sri.Chinna Venkat Reddy both S/o

Sri. Laxmaiah have an extent of Ac. 1-36 Cents & Ac. 3-24 Cents

in Sy. No. 435/E & 436/A, respectively and 3) Sri. Santhamgari

Chinna Reddy S/o Shanker Reddy had an extent of Ac. 2 -31

Cents in Sy. No.436/AA, Koukuntla Village, Devarakadra Mandal.

14

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

b) Out of the above lands, the Government has acquired an

extent of Ac. 04-00 Cents in Sy. No. 435/AA, Ac. 1-36 Cents in

Sy. No. 435/E, Ac. 3 -24 Cents in Sy.No. 436/A and an extent of

Ac. 3-14 Cents in Sy. No. 436/AA to a total extent of Ac.12-64

Cents, Koukuntla Village, Devarakadra Mandal for providing

house sites to the weaker section people of said village, vide the

Tahsildar, Atmakur file No. D2/3006/1984 and the petitioners or

their predecessors had received the payment of compensation

vide the Land Acquisition Officer & Tahsildar, Atmakur Form - C

No. D2/3006/1984, dated 06- 1985.

c) The writ petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, only having an extent of Ac.

0-30 Cents each (i.e.) total to an extent of Ac. 01 -20 Cents in

Sy. No. 435/AA and the remaining suit land has been acquired

by the Government and they are not in possession and

enjoyment over suit land. Further, it is submitted that, the

details of acquisition of the above lands were not carried out in

the connected Revenue Re cords by oversight and taking

advantage of the same the petitioners herein are suppressing the

acquisition of their lands with a malafide intention.

d) The above said lands, except Ac. (01-20) Cents in Sy. No.

435/AA has been acquired for the purpose of providing house

15

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

sites to the weaker section people of Koukuntla Village, during

the year 1984 and from the date of acquisition the above lands

were vested in the Government and patta certificates were

issued in the year 1984-85. Thus, the petitioners have never

been in possession of the above lands at any point of time after

1984. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to

be dismissed.

5. The learned Senior Designate Counsel Sri S.Sr inivas

Reddy appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly puts

forth the following submissions:

i) The subject land sought to be acquired patta land

which is in petitioners possession even till date as

per the documents filed along with the writ

petition.

ii) Neither the petitioners nor their predecessors have

received any compensation

iii) Assuming that Section 4 and 6 declarations have

been issued, the award ought to have been passed

within two years from the date of Section 6

declaration i.e., according to the respondents ,

from 22.11.1984, before 21.11.1986.

iv) Since the same has not been done, the entire

proceedings under the Act, have lapsed and if the

respondents still want the land belonging to the

16

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

petitioners, they have to invoke the provisions of

the Act of 2013.

v) None of the Documents envisaged in the Act to show

issuance of Section 4 or Section 6 have been

produced before this Hon'ble Court

vi) The 4(1) Notification produced is only a proforma

notification seeking to acquire the land. It is not a

notification published in the Gaz ette or

newspapers or local publication.

vii) Documents showing publication of Section 6

Declaration have not been filed.

viii) According to Section 17 in case of urgency the

possession of the land would be taken on

expiration of 15 days from the date of publication

of notice mentioned in Section 9(1) and the land

shall thereupon vests with the Government.

ix) In the present case on hand, as evident from the

Panchanama as well as the letter addressed by

the Village Revenue Officer to the Tahsildar,

possession has not been given to the

beneficiaries.

x) The pahanies, mutation proceedings and pattadar

passbooks and title deeds evidence that the

petitioners are still continuing possession of the

land in question.

xi) It is reiterated that the responde nts did not

produce any record/d ocuments to show that the

mandatory procedures as contemplated under the

Act has been followed.

17

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

xii) In view of the fact that no award has been passed

as on date, the Land Acquisition proceedings

lapsed in the year 1986 itself, there cannot be any

violation of petitioners constitutional right to

property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of

India, since the same amounts to violation of

human rights.

Basing on the aforesaid submissions, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended

that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners

are in continuous possession of land to an extent of Ac.15.84

Cents in Sy. Nos. 435/AA, 435/E, 435/U, 435/UU, 435/LU,

436/U, 436/UU, 436/UU1, 436/RU and 436/RUU, situated at

Kaukuntla Village and Mandal, (previously Devarakadra Mandal),

Mahabubnagar District, and the petitioners have been issued

pattadar passbooks and title deeds by the then Mandal Revenue

Officer, Devarakadra Mandal and hence it is not open to the

respondents to seek dispossession of the petitioners under the

plea that the subject lands had been acquired from the

petitioners in the year 1984.

18

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

7. It is further the specific plea of the petitioners that

assuming without admitting the Government had issued

notifications for acquiring petitioners lands way back in the year

1984, the Government cannot now seek to take possession of

the petitioners subject land from the petitioners after a lapse of

35 years based on preliminary proceedings that too without

passing an award and without paying compensation.

8.

On perusal of the original record as handed over to

the Court by the learned Government Pleader

representing the respondents , it has been observed and

noticed by this Court as under:

a) Certain statements said to have been ma de during

award enquiry.

b) Records relating to the publication of 4(1)

Notification, 6 Declaration, 9 and 10 proceedings, 11

enquiry, 12 award and 17(4) proceedings are not

available.

c) Page 243 of the original record refers to award

enquiry notices along with Form No.10 as being submitted

for approval.

d) Page 244 of the original record indicates a note

which reads as under:

Award under Section 11 had been passed and

pronounced. H owever, the original records does not

19

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

contain the copy of the award nor the details of the award

enquiry conducted.

e) Note at page 245 of the original record says

draft Form No.13 is put up for approval i.e., dated

20.01.1986.

f) The Note dated 20.01.1995 of t he original record

reads as under:

“Kind attention is invited to letter No.135/1273/93 dated

20.10.1994 of the AD (SRLR). The Assistant Director has

issued Suppl Sethwar for Sy.No.432/2 of Kaukuntla Village.

No more action is to be taken in this file. If agreed this file

may be closed under R.DISA/3006/84 and original Suppl

Sethwar may be handed over to the Jamabandi clerk for

effecting changes in the Revenue Records.”

g) Page 243 to 246 indicates 4 (1) Notification

published in the village on 19.10.19 94 and further that

award enquiry notices along with Form No.10 are

submitted for approval.

h) Page 244 indicates a Note which reads Award

under Section 11 had been passed and pronounced. But

the original record does not whisper the date when the

alleged award has been passed.

i) Note at page 245 says draft Form No.13 is put

up for approval i.e., dated 20.01.1986.

j) The record indicates approval of preliminary

valuation statement dated 10.12.1984 vide File

No.08/3006/1984 without an Award on record.

20

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

9. A bare perusal of the original record indicates at

page 79 the note signed by LAO and Tahsildar, Athmakur,

dated 31.08.1984 that the proposed needy beneficiaries

are living in congested and rented houses with combined

families. Therefore, this case is taken up under urgency

clause Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, and

submitted the DN & DD proposals under Section 4 (1) and

(6) of the Land Acquisition Act respectively, while

invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the

Land Acquisition Act for approval and publication in the

District Gazette for initiating the further process and to

relieve the needy beneficiaries from the congestion.

10.

This Court opines that the original record placed

before the Court does not support the case of the official

respondents as put forth in the counter affidavit at para 3

in particular that the Government had acquired an extent

of Ac.04.00 gts., in Sy.No.435/AA, Ac.1.36 gts., in

Sy.No.435/E, Ac.3.24 gts., in Sy.No.436/A, and an extent

of Ac.3.14 gts., in Sy.No.436/AA to a total extent of

Ac.12.64 cents, Koukuntla Village, Devarakadra Mandal

for providing house sites to the needy weaker section

21

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

people of Koukuntla Village, Devarakadra Mandal, vide the

Tahsildar, Athmakur File No.D2/3006/1984.

11. The original record does not support the specific

case of the official respondents that except Ac.01.20 gts.

in Sy.No.435/AA remaining entire land had been acquired

by the Government. The original record neither contains

the Gazetted 4 (1) notification nor 6 d eclaration, nor any

proceedings relating to conduct of any enquiry, nor

issuance of notice to persons interested, nor the date of

enquiry and award by the Collector, the record however

indicates short notes for approval of preliminary valuation

statement of lands under acquisition for providing house

sites to the beneficiaries of Koukuntla Village of Athmakur

Taluq, Mahaboobnagar District. The details relating to the

Publication of 4 (1) Notification in two local news papers

in the locality, 6 declaration, 9 and 10 proceedings,

section 11 enquiry, 12 Award, 12 (2) notices and 17 (4)

proceedings are not available in the record. However,

based on the record which does not contain any

documents relating to the alleged acquisition of the land

belonging to the petitioners by following the due process

contained in the Act, the learned Government Pleader

22

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

curiously contends that the record produced by him

corroborates that the land of the petitioners was acquired

and sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. This Court

opines that the said plea of the official respondents is

without any justification and contrary to the record.

12. Under Section 11A the Collector shall make an Award

within a period of two years from the date of publication

of the declaration and if the Award is not made within that

period, the entire proceedings of the Acquisition of the

Land shall lapse.

13. A bare perusal of the panchanama referred to and

extracted above, as well as the letter addressed by the

Village Revenue Officer to the Tahsildar, indicate that

possession had not been given to the beneficiary as on

date, nor any compensation had been paid to the

petitioners. A plea in the counter affidavit that the details

of the acquisition of the subject lands had not been

carried out in the connected revenue records by oversight ,

cannot be the ground to deny petitioners legitimate rights

for payment of compensation.

23

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

14. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in Jilubhai

Nanbhai Khachar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1995)

Suppl. (1) SCC 596 at para 48 observed as under :

Para 48 : In other words, Article 300 -A only limits

the powers of the State that no person shall be

deprived of his property save by authority of law.

There has to be no deprivation without any sanction

of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not

acquisition or taking possession under Article 300 -A.

In other words, if there is no law, there is no

deprivation.

15. The right to property is now considered to be not

only a constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human

right, though it is not a basic feature of the Constitution or

a Fundamental Right. Human Rights are considered to be

in realm of individual rights, such as the right to health,

the right to livelihood, the right to shelter and

employment, etc., now however human rights are gaining

an ever greater multifaceted dimension. The right to

property is considered very much to be a part of such new

dimension. (Lachman Dass vs. Jagat Ram, 2007 (10) SCC

448, Amarjith Singh vs. State of Punjab 2010 (10) S CC 43,

State of M.P. vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan 2011 (7) SCC

639, State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar, 2011 (10) SCC

24

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

404, Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of U.P.,

2011 (9) SCC 354).

16. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2013) 1

SCC 353 in Tukaram Kana Joshi Vs. Maharastra Industrial

Development Corporation at para 8 observed as under :

“The Apex court held that the claimants were

deprived of immovable property in 1964, when Article 31

of the Constitution was still intact and the right to property

was a part of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 of the

Constitution. It is pertinent to note that even after the

right to property ceased to be a fundamental right, taking

possession of or acquiring the property of the citizen most

certainly tantamount to deprivation and such deprivation

can take place only in accordance to ‘

law’, as the said word

as specifically being used in Article 300 -A of the

Constitution. Such deprivation can only be by resorting to

a procedure prescribed by a statute. The same cannot be

done by way of exclusive float or order or administration

caprice.

17. It is settled law when a statute describes or requires

a thing to be done in a particular manner it should be

done in that manner or not at all.

A) (M.Shankara Red dy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao

reported in (2017) SCC Online Hyd 426).

25

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

B)

The Division Bench of Apex Court in its judgment

dated 04.10.2021 in Supertech Ltd., Vs. Emerald Court

Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors., reported in

2021 SCC Online SC 3 422, referring to Taylor Vs. Taylor,

1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor

reported in (1936) L.R.63 Ind Ap372 and Parbhani

Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. The Regional

Transport Authority, Aurangabad & Ors., reported in AIR

1960 SC 801 at para 13 observed as under :

“It is that where a power is given to do a certain

thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way

or not at all and that other methods of performance are

necessarily forbidden. Hence when a statute requires a

particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must

be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of

performance are necessarily forbidden. This Court too, h as

adopted this maxim. This rule provides that an expressly

laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a

prohibition on doing it in any other way.

18. The Apex Court in the judgment dated 06.04.2022

reported in (2022) 7 SCC 508 in Sukh Dutt Ratra and

another v State of Himachal Pradesh and others referring

the judgment repo rted in (2020) 2 SCC 69 in Vidya Devi v

State of Himachal Pradesh, facing an almost identical set

26

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

of facts and circumstances – rejected the contention of

“oral” consent to be baseless and outlined the

responsibility of the State as under:

“12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law,

the State could not have deprived a citizen of their

property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on

the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC

[Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 35 3 : (2013)

1 SCC (Civ) 491] 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.

12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar

[State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 :

(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769] held that the right to property is

now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory

right, but also a human right. Human rights have been

considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to

shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights

have gained a multi-faceted dimension.”

19. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in its

recent judgment reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in Indore

Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal and Others opined

that compliance of either of the two conditions i.e., taking

over of possession of the land or paymen t of

compensation is good enough to sustain the acquisition.

But in the present case admittedly as borne on record,

there is no evidence borne on record with regard to

27

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

passing of an award in respect of the petitioners’ subject

properties nor payment of co mpensation, nor delivery of

possession. Hence, this Court opines that the petitioners

are entitled for the relief as claimed by the petitioners

herein.

20. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2023)

Livelaw (SC) 302 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 :

“12. The issue as to what is meant by "possession of the

land by the State after its acquisition" has also been

considered by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra).

It is opined therein that after the acquisition of land and

passing of award, the land vests in the State free from all

encumbrances. The vesting of land with the State is with

possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter

has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land is

acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or

police force to retain the possession and start cultivating

on the land till it is utilized. The Government is also not

supposed to start residing or physically occupying the

same once process of the acquisition is complete. If after

the process of acquisition is complete and land vest in the

State free from all encumbrances with possession, any

person retaining the land or any re-entry made by any

person is nothing else but trespass on the State land.

Relevant paragraphs 244, 245 and 256 are extracted

below:

"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

28

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

thereupon land vest free from all encumbrances in

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 drawing of panchnama for taking over

the possession is not enough when the actual

physical possession remained with the landowner

and Section 24(2) requires actual physical possession

to be taken, not the possession in any other form.

When the State has acquired the land and award has

been passed, land vests in the State Gove rnment

free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the

land in the State is with possession, any person

retaining the possession, thereafter, has to be

treated as trespasser and has no right to possess the

land which vests in the State free from all

encumbrances.

245. The question which arises whether there is any

difference between taking possession under the Act

of 1894 and the expression "physical possession"

used in Section 24(2). As a matter of fact, what was

contemplated under the Act of 1894, by taking the

possession meant only physical possession of the

land. Taking over the possession under the Act of

2013 always amounted to taking over physical

possession of the land. When the State Government

acquires land and drawns up a memorandum of

taking possession, that amounts to taking the

physical possession of the land. On the large chunk

of property or otherwise which is acquired, the

Government is not supposed to put some other

person or the police force in possession to retain it

and start cultivating it till the land is used by it for

the purpose for which it has been acquired. The

Government is not supposed to start residing or to

physically occupy it once possession has been taken

by drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining

possession thereof. Thereafter, if any further

retaining of land or any re-entry is made on the land

or someone starts cultivation on the open land or

starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed to be

29

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

the trespasser on land which in possession of the

State. The possession of trespasser always inures for

the benefit of the real owner that is th e State

Government in the case.

256. Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with

possession and the statute has provided under

Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1894 that once

possession is taken, absolute vesting occurred. 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, declaration under 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 encumbranc es 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."

In the present case the original record pertaining to

the subject issue before this Court however does not

indicate the vesting specified under Section 16 which

takes place after various steps such as notification under

Section 4, declaration under Section 6, notice under

Section 9, award under Section 11 after serving notice to

the petitioners under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition

30

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

Act, 1984 and then taking over possession of the subject

land by conduct of the panchanama as per due procedure

under law.

21. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the

Judgment reported in Indore Development Authority vs.

Manohar Lal and Others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 at

paragraphs 362 and 366 observed as under :

““362. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal

Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all

other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation

(supra) has been followed, are also overruled. … ...

366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the

questions as under:

366.1. Under the p rovisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the

award is not made as on 01.01. 2014, the date of

commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of

proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under

the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within the

window period of five years excluding the period covered

by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall

continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013

Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between

possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as

“and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings

under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due

to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to

commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has

not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other

words, in case possession has been taken, compensation

31

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if

compensation has been paid, possession has not been

taken then there is no lapse.

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section

24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of

compensation in court. The consequence of non deposit is

provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not

been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings

then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of

notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894

Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with

the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under

Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been

fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be

granted. Non deposit of compensation (in court) does not

result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case

of non deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for

five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has

to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of

notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894

Act.

363.5. In case a person has been tendered the

compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894

Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has

lapsed under Section 24(2) due to nonpayment or non

deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is

complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1) .

The landowners who had refused to accept compensation

or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot

claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to

be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section

24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act

and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of

inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed

on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the

land vests in State there is no divesting provided under

32

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has

been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2) .

366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a

deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case

authorities have failed due to their inaction to take

possession and pay compensation for five years or more

before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for

land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as

on 01.01.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders

passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of

five years.

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to

new cause of action to question the legality of concluded

proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a

proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the

2013 Act i.e. 0 1.01.2014. It does not revive stale and

time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded

proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality

of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or

mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of

court to invalidate acquisition.”

22.

The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2005 (7)

SCC, page 627 in “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited Vs. DARIUS Shapur, Chennai and Others, vide its

Judgment dated 20.09.2005 at para 29 observed as under:

“29. The Act is an expropriatory legislation. This

Court in State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma observed

that in such a case the provisions of the statute should be

strictly construed as it deprives a person of his land

without consent. [See also Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan

and CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd.]

There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that in a case of this

nature due application of mind on the part of the statutory

authority was imperative.”

33

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

23.

Taking into consideration:

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

b) The interim orders of this Court dated 27.10.2015

passed in W.P.No.34951 of 2015 which are in force as on

date,

c) Duly considering the fact as borne on record, that the

record relating to publication of 4 (1) notification, 6

declaration, 9 and 10 proceedings, section 11 enquiry,

copy of the award passed under Section 12, 17 (4)

proceedings are not available in the original record,

d) The observations of the Apex Court in the various

judgments reported in

(i) (1995) Suppl.(1) SCC 596 in Jilubhai Nanbhai

Khachar Vs. State of Gujarat,

(ii) 2007 (10) SCC 448 in Lachman Dass V s. Jagat

Ram,

(iii) 2010 (10) SCC 43 in Amarjith Singh vs. State of

Punjab,

(iv) 2011 (7) SCC 639 State of M.P. vs. Narmada

Bachao Andolan,

(v) 2011 (10) SCC 404 in State of Haryana vs.

Mukesh Kumar,

34

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

(vi) 2011 (9) SCC 354) in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt.

Ltd., vs. State of U.P.,

(vii) (2013) 1 SCC 353 in Tukaram Kana Joshi Vs.

Maharastra Industrial Development Corporation,

(viii) (2017) SCC Online Hyd 426) in M.Shankara

Reddy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao,

(ix) 2021 SCC Online SC 3422 in Supertech Ltd., Vs.

Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association

and Ors.,

(x) (1936) L.R.63 Ind Ap372 in Nazir Ahmed Vs. King

Emperor,

(xi) AIR 1960 SC 801 in Parbhani Transport Co -

operative Society Ltd., Vs. The Regional Transport

Authority, Aurangabad & Ors.,

(xii) (2022) 7 SCC 508 in Sukh Dutt Ratra and

another v State of Himachal Pradesh and others,

(xiii) (2020) 2 SCC 69 in Vidya Devi v State of

Himachal Pradesh,

(xiv) (2023) Livelaw (SC) 302 in Land and Building

Department, through Secretary and Another Vs.

Attro Devi & Others,

35

WP_34951_2015

SN,J

(xv)

2005 (7) SCC, p age 627 in “Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. DARIUS Shapur,

Chennai and Others, referred to and extracted above,

(xvi) In the light of the discussion and conclusion

as arrived at as above.

The Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. However

there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________

MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

Date: 03.06.2024

Note: L.R.Copy to be marked

(B/o) Yvkr