The High Court · 2025

Order

. Heard Sri Varun Thakur, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoners and Sri A'sudharshan Reddy, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3

2. The oetition ers aD roached the Cou rt seeki no Draver as under: "...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ and declare that the action of the respondents ln acquiring the lands of the petitioner in survey Nos' 111/1 and 111 totally admeasuring Ac' 13-30 guntas in Nanakramguda Village Serilingampally mandal Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of establishment of Information and Technology park by the 3rd respondent is arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondent to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over the said lands and grant such other... " 5 3 v r e n e a h u nder: !n e a d r t h s The present Writ petition was filed on 23.06.2fl(t3, anitially by one Motilal s/o Tuljaram who had passed away on 12.11.20O7 and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 had been brought on record as LRs of deceased sole petitioner as per court order, dafed O4.O4.2OL2 passed in W.P.M.P-No. tt7ga of 2OL2. The petitioners, late father i.e., one Mr. Motilal s/o Tuljaram is the absolute owner and possessor of an agriculture land admeasuring Acres 13.3O guntas in Sy.No,111lf and 111 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District and the petitioners' late father had been cultivating the said tands with the assistance of monsoon rains, a bore well and a natural well. In the year 2OO2 paddy crop had been raised in the said subject lands, but in the year 2OO3 due to poor monsoon, the said land had been kept faltow. It is further the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent had issued land acquasition notification in 6 respect of the neighbouring Survey Nos.1O9 & 11O totally admeasuring Ac.3.29 guntas in A.P.Gazette, dated 13.06.2OO1 for the purpose of development of Cyber park. The owners of the said land and few others had filed w.P.No.18813 of 2OO1 questioning the said acquisition and the said writ petition was allowed on O4.o9.2OO2 directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents had issued another notification, dated 01.O7.2OO2 in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.4 to 35 and 4L to 49 of Nanakramguda Villdge for the purpose of new projects of the 3'd respondent. The said notification was challenged by petitioners' late father Sri Motilal and few others by fiting W.P.No .16934 ot 2OO2 and this Court granted stay of all further proceedings including dispossession- The said interim orders are subsisting as on date and had been made absolute and the said W.P.No.16934 of 2oo2 is pending final adjudication on the file of this court as on date. It is further the case of the petationers that the 2"d respondent had issued Form-l0, notice dated 31.O5.2OO3 stating that as per the A.P. Gazette, dated 1O.O2.2OO3, the 7 land of petitioners' late father had been acquired for establishment of Information and Technology park by the 3'd respondent. The respondents had not published the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act either in the newspapers or in the locality and the respondents had denied enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act under the guase of the urgency in acquisition proceedings. The purpose indicated in the Form-1O, notice, dated 31.05.2003 is not a public purpose within the meaning of the Act and aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the land acquisition notafications for the purpose of establishment of I.T.park by the 3.,r respondent dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act depriving the petitioner with the opportunity of objection under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4.P E RUSED THE RECORD: A. The interim orders of this Cou , dated 24.O 7.20fJ3 inf v of h on f .P.M. .1494 f 200 I .P.N 15of2 r hereu nder:- " interim stay of dispossession. Notice. B B .2005 a sed in W.P.M.P. ol 2023 and W.V.M.P.No.1O67 ot 2025 in the Dresent W.P.No.12O15 of 2OO3 is extraeted hereu! der:- "This application is filed by the third respondent in the writ petition to vacate the interim stay dt.24-07-2003 passed in WPMP No.14940 of 2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award has been passed on 27.12.2OO3 and possession has been obtained on L4.07.2OO3 and thus order of interim stay of dispossession is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent (writ petition) submits that the very purpose for which the land is proposed to.be acquired is not for public purpose for which the land is proposed to be acquired is not for public purpose and therefore, dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry under the Land Acquisition act is not legal and proper. The question whether dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry is legal and proper has be gone into in the writ petition. It is suffice to say that award has been passed on 27.72.2003. In these circumstances - I deem it aoorooriate to modifv the interim order oassed in WPMP No.1494O of 2OO3 to that of status ouo with reqard to the nature and oossess ion of the land existino as on this dav, pendino disposal of the writ petition. C. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resoondent No.3 and in oarticular oara Nos. 5, 7 and I are extracted hereu nder: - 9

5. In regard to Para No.3 of the Affidavit of the Petitioner, I submit that the Corporation requested the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 11. 1.2000 for acquisition of lands under the Land Acquisition Act under urgency Clause in survey Nos.4 to 49 totally admeasuring Acs.92.19 guntas situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for development of Cyber Park by APIIC. The 1st Respondent examined the request of the Corporation and approved the Draft Notification vide orders dated 7.2.2OO3 and Draft Declaration vide orders dated 11.2.2003 under the L.A. Act. The DN and DD were got published a follows following the procedure under the LA Act for acquisition of Acs. 13.30 guntas of land in Survey No. lll/1 Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampaliy Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In AP Gazette In Vartha In News Boom In the locality Draft Notificataon Draft Declaration 10.o2.2003 os.o4.2003 o5.04.2003 29.O3.2003

13.O2.2003 07.04.2003 oa.04.2003 29.O3.2003 The substance of the DN and DD was also got published in the locality as mentioned above. I submit that the Cyber Park is a unique project being developed by the Corporation wherein the reputed software units set up their projects to facilitate socio-economic development of the State. It is for public purpose that the lands in question were notified for acquisition. The Software units are highly capital intensive projects providing large employment opportunities. Already an extent of Acs.90.30 guntas of Government of land in survey No.115 of the same village was handed over to the Corporation for development of the IT Park. To ensure compactness of the IT Park/Cyber Park, the lands in question are under acquisition for the above said public purpose. The petitioner may be put to strict proof of his averments that he owns the lands in question, that he was cultivating the same with the assistance of monsoon rains and a bore well and a natural well and that he had raised a paddy crop In the said land last year. I submit that the lands are kept fallow. 10

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

8. I submit that the lands in question were identified and notified for acquisition after examining the matter carefully. The lands in question are essential so as to ensure compactness of the Cyber Park being developed by the Corporation. The development works for the proposed project would be taken up soon. I submit that invoking urgency provisions under the LA Act in the present case is esiential and proper since the lands are urgently required for development of the Cyber Park. The lands were identified taking into account the requirements of the project being developed by the Corporation and therefore the allegation that the acquisition of the lands of the petitionel is arbitrary and illegal is not correct and the same is hereby denied. D The counter affidavi filed on ehalf of he resDo dent No.2 and in Da rticular Dara No-6 is extra d hereun der:-

6. In reply to para (4) of the affidavit it is submitted that the notification under section a(1) of the L.A. Act, in respect of the land in Sy. No. 111, admeasuring (13-30) 11 acres, was published in the A.P. Gazette RR-14, dated 10.02.2003, in the Telugu daity, Vartha dated 05.04.2003 and News Boom, English daily. The notices under section 9(1) & 10 and 9(3) & 10 of the Act, duly fixing the date of award enquiry on 16.04.2003, were also served over the persons interested and displayed at appropriate places of the mandal jurisdiction. Since the requisitioning department has expressed urgency. for handing over of the land, notice in Form-10 of the Act, dated 3i.05.2003 was served over the persons interested and possession of the land was taken over on L4.07.2003. The award in the case passed on 27.12.2003. It is not correct to say that the notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Act were ither published in the news papers nor in the locality Th e otificatio s under section 4( 1 )6ofth Act, were Du blished in the V artha Tel qu dailv dated o5.o .2OO3. Ne Boom E qlish dailv o5.o4.200 3 and 29.03.2OO3 and oa.o4.2 OO3 resoectivelv. E Latest additional count r affidavit filed on be alf of the resDondent Nos.1 & 2 filed in Aoril, 2024 nd in Dart icular oara No.6 is extr cted hereunder:-

6. In reply to para (4) of the affidavit it is submitted that the notification under section aQ) of the LA act, in respect of the Sy. No. 111, admeasuring (13-30) acres, was published in the AP Gazette RR-14, dated: 10.02.2003, in the Telugu daily, Vaartha dated:05.04.2OO3 and News Boom, English daily. The notices under section 9(1) & 10 and 9(3) & 10 of the Act, duly fixing the date of award enquiry on 16.04.2003, were also served over the persons interested and displayed at appropriate places of the mandal jurisdiction. Since the requisitioning department has expressed urgency, for handing over of the land, notice in Form- 10 of the Act, dated: interested and possession of the land was taken over on 14.07.2003. The 31.05.2003 was served over the persons award in the case passed on 27.I2.2OO3. It is not correct to sav that the Ac w neither oublished in the news Da ers nor in loca litv. The notifications under Se ion 4(1)( 6) of the Act were ou bl ish d in the Vaa rtha Teluq u dailv 6 r r2 o5.o oo3 New Boo a 2

3.20 t .o4.2 resDe tivelv. F No.B in Fo Notice /4a412 02oft e2@Re soonde t 10, En h a o 200

31.05 .2003 SD ial De utv I lect u tsl In n er *FORM -10 No. t4a4l oo2 Dated: 31.O5.2OO3 Notice under the L.A. Act (Act I of 1894) Take notice that the marginally noted property has been required by Government under the L.A' Act for the Development of Cyber Park by APIIC Ltd., as per Notification in the A P' Gazette No.R.R.No.14 dated 10.02.2003 and that you should vacate and deliver possession of it before the evening of the date 16.06.2003 to the Spl. Dy.Tahsildar LA (Industrial) Hyd' District Ma ndal Village Sy.No. Extent : Ranga Reddy ) of this office who has received : Serilingampally ) necessary instructions in the : Nanak Ramguda ) matter, if you fail to do so, : l1.l/l ) action will be taken to enforce : Ac.13-30 Gts. ) this department under Sec'17 of the L.A.Act. Special DePuty collector L.A,(Inds.,) Hyderabad" G.T n h d o4.o

9.2.)02. oassed i n W.P.N o.1a813 of 2OO1 is extra cted hereu nder: - 13 fnv ew of the authori tive oro ounceme nt of law eclared bv the Aoex Court, d cla ration which was made on O8.O6.2001 even before Dublicat on of notification Section 4(L) a o cannot

08.- 6.2OO1 which wasDu blished in the A.P.Gazette RRNo.34. da L4.06.2 OO1 orooosino to aco ulre an exte nt of Ac 3-29 ou tas of I nd belonqino to the Det tioners rs ouas hed. Consequently, the respondents are at liberty to conduct an enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and after making such enquiry, the authorities can pass appropriate orders including making of a declaration. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs. H The ordet, dated o5.o9.2002 Dassed P o.2L f inW o.16 of2 extracted hereunder:- " The purpose for which the land in question is sought to be acquired is development ot new projects fy ifre n .P-I.I.C. the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, for such purpose, is not permissible. The learned Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition places reliance upon the judgment of the division Bench of this Co-urt in Peddi Anjaiah Vs. Thd L.A.O., Karimnagar (2002 (1) DT (AP) 364) in support of here contention that the power under Section L7 $) of the Act can be invoked in such cases. The Division Bench relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohan Singh vs. International Airport Authority of India (1997) 9 SCC 132). ORDER WP.No.12015 of 2003 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS