The Airports Authority v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Order

Heard learned counsel lor the petitioner and iearned Government Pleadcr for Revenue appearing lor respondent Nos. i to 4, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

2. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned proceedings bearing No.B I 177 1 / 2000 dated 26.02.2008 issued by 3rd respondent in resuming the land to an extent of Ac.9-00 guntas situated in Sy.No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (lre reinafte r relerred as 'subject land') from the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice, Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and without jurisdiction, '"t'it h a consequential prayer to set-aside the said impugned proceedings. BRIEF HISTORY:

3. Prior to I97 7 , all the activities related to the Construction and Manage ment of thc lrt tt'rnational and Domestic Air port, Air Traffic control and Air Spacc Management were controlled by the Director General Civil Aviation. The International Airport Authority of India (for short 'IAAIJ was constituted as an autonomous body under the lnternational Airport Ar:thority Act, I9'l 1 . Further, the National Airports Authority (NAA) was constituted under the provisions of National Airports Authority Act, 1985. In the year 1994 to provide a 2 closer integration of the management of the Airports and Aircraft services in the country, the Airport Authority of India Bill, 1993 was passed by both the Flouscs of Parliament whi<:h received the assent of The Pre sident on i 2th Scptcmber, 1994. The Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as ("AAI") has come into force by repealing the International Airports Authoritv ol [ndia Act, 1971 and the National Airports Authority Act, 1985 and constituted a single unihed Airports Authority of India to control and manage both the National and International Airports in the country and the undertakings of both the International Airports Authority of India and National Airports Authority vested in the said Airports Authority of India.

4. Facts giving rise to the filing of this tt'rit petition are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh alienated the subject land in favour of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govcrnment ol lndia in the ycar 1966- 67, since then the said land was in possession of the Ministry of Civil Aviation from the year 1966-67. 'l'he said land was acquircd by the Central Government for the purpose of operating a Radio Navigational Aid (V.O.R). Accordingly, VOR facility was installed and was commissioned in 197 I and that an area measuring 305 meters around VOR facility has to be kept free of obstructions.

5. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 11.1O.1988 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherilingampally and letters dated 2O.O7.19a9, 25.08.1989 and 29.12.1989 to rcspondent Nos.2 and 3 with a request to send original sale deed in which the subject property / was ailotted to the Airport Authority of India as the said document ) was misplaced with the petitioner but, there was no response from them. Again a letter dated 08.03.1990 was addressed to the M.R.O.Sherilingampally rvherein it was brought to his notice that the land to an extent of Ac.B.9 is the most ideal place to locate a radio navigational aid for assisting air craft for reroute flying and also for making a safe landing from the u,e st and that the land alienated in the year 1966-67 was fully utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired and a repiy was also given to the letter dated 24.O2.L99O issued by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

6. The Secretary to Government, Rcvenue Department vide letter No.0352l7/Assgn.lll (3)191, dared 26.04.199 1 issued memo to the petitioner to show cause within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the memo as to why the unutilized extcnt of Ac.9.0O in Sy.No.26, Gachibowli Village shall not be resumed lor failure to utilize the land. The petitioner vide letter datcd 2.:.06. 199 1 repliecl to the show cause notice explaining how the land w.rs utilizcd and lurther submitted that details were immediately not availablc with the petitioner as the alienation was made in favour of Ccntral Government i.e., the Ministry ol Civil Aviation, Government of Indizr in the year 1966-67. The Mandal Revenue Officer even after several requests had not supplied the copy of the alienation deed and the pctitioner linally requested 1st respondent to drop further action kecping in view of the fact that the 4 E VOR facility is extremely important for safety of aircraft operations. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a lctter dated 28.O6.200O to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherilingampally to furnish copy of allotment orders and sub-division skctch allotted lor VOR st.ation of AAI in Sy.No.26 of Kanche Gachi Bou,li (v) and b.,' letter dated 1O.O5.20O6 requested to survey the subject land to ascertain petitioner's actual possession of the land. Further, the Mandal Surveyor carried physical verification of the subject land on 2a.O9.2006 and the petitioner vide letter dated 02.O4.2OO7 requestcd the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue the combined revenue map duly demarcating the subject land and the

3.d respondent vide letter dated 31.05.2007 addressed to the petitioner informing that thc Mandal Surveyor of his oflice has demarcated the subject land in which the petitioner rvas in physical possession with constructed compound wa[l. Thereafter, 3.,1 respondcnt vide proceedings dated 09.O1.2OO8 passed orders for resumption of un-utilized subject land lying vacant which was allotted to the petitioner and directed the Manclal Revenue lnspector, Serilingampally to resume the abovc land from the petitioner under cover of panchanama and ordercd for compliance. The petitioner vide letter dated 16.0 1 .2008 informed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad all the said facts and brought to their notice that the petitioner proposed to construct 350 residential quarters for its empioyees to be deployed at Shamshabad Airport with effect from March, 2008. It is further submitted that the respondents without following due process of law had broken the lock put by the \-_ ) petitioner Lo lhe GaLc and defacecl the sign boarcl of the petitioner which was erected near compound wall. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.1525 of 2008 questioning the order dated 09.0i.2008 of 3'd respondent and this Court vide order datcd 3 1 . i 0.2008 allowed the writ petition and while setting aside the impugned order of 3.d respondent dated 09.01.2008, kept it open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordancc wilh law. Thereafter, the 3d respondent issued notice No.B I L77 I I2OOO dated 08.02.2008 alleging that the subject land is found vacant and lying idle and proposed to resume the vacant land for public purpose and in response to the said notice, the petitioncr submitted <:xplanati<>n dateci 15.02.2008 and replied that the said land was alienated to the erstwhile Civil Aviation Department in the year 1966-67 for the purpose of instailation of radio navigational equipment (VOR) on the land and the said NAV- AIDS was functional and opcrative <-rn thr- subject land since l97l lor air safety operations and that even till date VOli buildings inciuding pump house are existing in l.he said land and as per the revenue records pertaining to thc subjccL ltrnd rcvcills that the subject land, was acquired/ allotted in thc name of the Civil Aviation Department and the land is properiy de marcated and surrounded by AAI compound wall and it was brought to the notice of the authorities that

the contention in the said notice dzrtcd 08.02.20085 that the land is found vacant and idle as incorrect and requested 3.d respondent to grant two weeks time for filing detailed reply after obtaining a conveyance deed from the (iovcrnmcnt regarding the said land. 6 Thereafter, petiLioner addressed a letter to lst respondent dated 2l.O2.2OOg with a request to serve a copy of the alienation deed for the subject land rvith an intention that the said document is to be fi-rrnished to thc 3rd respondcnt and a specific requcst was made in the said letter that tl-re pctitioncr asked the said alienation deed under right to information Act by paying the requisite fee. The petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated 25.02.2008 to the Special Secretary to thc Government of Andhra Pradcsh (infrastructure and investment department) with a request to advise State officials not to occupy Ac.9-0O of land at Gachibowli which was allotted to the Airport Authority of India and further addressed a letter dated 28.02.2008 to

3.d respondent with a rcquest to grant two more weeks for filing a detailed reply to the show cause notice since the conveyance deed is not served on the pctitioner. The, 3'd respondent received the letter of the petitioner on 28.O2.2OO8 itself and issued thc prescnt impugned proceedings b5, putting anl-e date i.e., 26.02.20O8 and the same was served on the petitioner on 29.O2.2OO8. In the impugned order, it was submitted that Airport Authority of lndia failed to produce any documentary proof about the alienation and the land is very valuable and required for public purpose and that the Airport Authority of India has failed to show the usage of the land for which it was given possession. The 3.d respondent without considering the averments made in the reply to the show cause notice and simply in a routine manner passed the present impugned order ordering for resumption of un-utilized land (subject land) from the Airport Authority of India - (Civil Aviation Department). lt is further submitted that the 7 respondents ought to have seen that the petitioner addressed letters on 11.10.1998,08.03.1990 and 28.08.i989 intimating that the land in Sy.No.26 of Gachibowli viltagc is under the occupation of Aeronautical Communications Station, Civil Aviation Department from where the navigation aid to the air crafts is providcd and requested to serve a copy of the conveyance deeri and even though all these letters were received by them long ago, but there was no denial from their side about the alienation and possessiorr of the land by the Air Ports Authority of India. It is further submitted that the 3.d respondent ought to have given notice to the Central Government while seeking for resumption. It is furthcr submitted that neither the District Collector nor the Tahsildar is confe rred with such power to pass adverse order against the petitioner and that the respondents ought to have seen that the State (iovernment headed by the respondents should not be dragged with the Public Sector Undertakings of the Union of India in the courts and that the petitioner being an organ of (Civil Aviation Department), Government of India and the alienation of the said land in favour of the pctitioner is f'inal and irrevocable as such, there is no question of resuming the land. It is further submitted that even thc proceedings of the Tahsildar show that there was a construction activity as per the records. It is further submitted that the respondents did not specify under what provision of law the show cause notice was issued and that the 3.d respondent issued the present impugned order without providing reasonable opportunity to / _a 8 the petitioner, inspite of a specific request made to 3rd respondent to grant two more wecks timc for submission of a detailed explanation to the said show cause notice, after obtaining a conveyance deed from the 1st respondent. It is further submitted that inspite of receipt of all these lettcrs addressed b1, the petitioner, 3'd respondent in a hurried manner passed thc present impugned orde r which is detrimental to the interest ol the petitioner and in view of the present impugned order, thc entire developmental rvorks including the construction of houses to employees of the Airport Authority ol India was stalled inspite of spending huge amount for that purpose and that 3'd respondent at the behest of 2nd respondent is initiating coercive steps for taking physical possession of the land forcibly from the hands of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 7 . This Court by order dated 18.03.2008 passed the following order: "Rute nisi. Call lor rccords. The lcarned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue takes noticc for the respondents and seeks time to file counter/get instructions. w.P M P No.7567 of 2OO8 The impugned order dated 26.02.2009 passed by the 3.d respondent, namely the '[ahsitdar (Deputy Collector Cadre), Scrilingampatly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, resuming the land in an extent of Ac.9-00 in Sy.No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli Village, Scrilingampally Mandal, from the petitioner on the ground that the same has not be put to utilization and is kept vacant, prima facie, is rvithour application of mind. 9 lt is seen frorn the material filed along with the writ petition, the petitioner has been in possession of the land for the last more than four decades and has also installed Navigation Control equipment on the land in question for the purpose of air 'safety operation. Since the land in question is being used by the petitioner and is not kept vacant as alleged in ttrc impugned order, the petitioner has madc out a case for suspension o[ the said order. IJence, thcrc shall be interim suspension of the impugned order as prayed for. Notice."

8. The respondent No.3 has filed counter on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 4 and u'ould submit that the subject land was in possession of Civil Aviation Department and as the land was kept un-utilized during the year l99O-91, the Government vide letter No.O35217/Assignment'lll(3)/91 dared 26.O4.199I has issued show cause notice informing that the subject land in possession of Airport Authority of India (Civil Aviation Department) remained un-utilized without any developments as such requested ro show cause within a fortnight lailing t4-ricl'r the Government will take necessary action for resumption of said un-utilized land. As the Government lands in the vicinity of Serilingampally Mandal are very valuable and required for public purposes, it was proposed to resume the un-utilized Government lands allotted to the Organizations in the Mandal. Accordingly, as the subject land allotted to the Airport Authority of India (Civil Aviation Department) is vacant and un-utilized, the ordcrs lor resumption was issued by IO Thahsildar, Serilingampally vide proceedings No.BllTTll2OOO dated 09.01.20O8 and the land under cover of panchanama dated

10.01.2008 was resumed. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Director, Airport Authorin of India has filed W.P.No.1525 of 2005 before the Higl-r Court and High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide its order dated 31.01.2008 allowed the said writ petition.

09. It is further submitted that pursuant. to the orders passed in W.P.No. 1525 of 2005, a notice vvas issued to the Director, Airport Authority of India or1 08.02.2008 vide BlI77 ll2OOO, dated

08.02.2008 informing that the Airport Authority ol India has. not utilized the subject land and as per the records available there is no evidence of allotmcnt or alienation of the land in favour of Airport Authoritl, of India ald as the lald which was previously been in possession of Airport Authority of India, is required for public purpose, s.as ciccidcrl to be r<:sumed to Government Custody. Therenftcr, in rcsponse to notice dated O8.O2.2OOB, the Director, Airport Authoritl of India vide letter dated 15.O2.2008 has sent reply which is self explanatory and informed that the land in question was acquired bv Airport Authority of India (erstwhile Civil Aviation Department) by paying requisite compensation during the year 1966-67 and the said land has been used and under possession of AAI for thc past (04) decades and the AAI installed Radio-Navigational Equipment on the land since lg7l for Air Safety U operations and in order to facilitate the smooth functioning of Shamshabad Airport to be commissioned in March, 2008 and also to solve the acute housing problem of its employees, the AAI has started construction work of 350 liesidential Quarters for its employees on the subject land at a cost of Rs.S1 crores and hence, requested to revoke the action proposed under the notice.

10. It is further submitted that the reply offered by the Director, Airport Authority of lndia was examined and found that there is no evidence filed in support ol their statement showing that the land acquired by them by paying requisite compensation during the year 1966-67 and allotment orders issued in their favour by the Government and they have failed to show the usage of the land for which it was given possession and only after the action initiated for resumption of un-utilized vacant Government lands allotted to the organizations, the Director, AAI has takcn a plea stating that the subject land wiil be used for construction of [iesidential Houses to solve the acute housing problem ol its employees. I l. It is further submitted that the reply offered by the Director, AAI did not substantiate the reasons explained to the notice, despite the fact that the land in Sy.No.26 extent Ac.9-00 guntas was never allotted or alienated in favour of Airport Authority of India which is clearly evident lrom thc corrcspondence done by the Organization with the Government i.e., requesting the Collector, Ranga Reddy District to transfer the land in their favour and that the said land u.as resurned under cover of panchanama dated

03.03.2008.

72. The Applicar.rt/5th respondt:nt has fi1ed W.P.M.P.No.26200 of 20OB ln W.P.No.SB13 of 2O0B sceking their impleadment as 5m respondent ancL statecl that thc Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ralgareddy District was directed to resume the land from 1 .t respondent/writ petitioner under a panchanama and in pursuance 1o the proceedings of Thahsildar, Sherilingampally Mandal, llangareddy l)istrict, a panchanama was recorded on 1O.O1.2OOB ri'here the land r,r,as taken into possession by the Thahsildar, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District on behalf of the Governmcnt. Thereaftcr, by palchalama recorded on 25.O1.2008, the land rvas handed over by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sherilingampalh. Mandai, Rangareddy District on behalf of the Government. [t is further submitted that pursuant to the said proceedings dated 26.02.2008, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District resumed possession of the land on behalf o[ thc Government of Andhra Pradesh vide pancharrama dated 28.O2.2OO8 and that the Applicant/Stt respondent took possession on the strength of the panchanama dated 03.O3.2008. The respondent No.1 filed counter to the implead petition W.P.M.P.No.26200 of 2OOB. l:l

13. This Court by order clated 21.06.20 i 1 allovved the irnplead petition W.P.M.P.No.2622O of 2008 and thereby the applicant was impleaded as respondent No.5 in W.P.No.5813 of 2008.

14. The writ petitioner lrled rcply aflldavit to the counter frled by the respondent No.3 and submitted that il is not disputed and that it was specificaliy admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the Airports Authority of India (AAI) (erstwhile Civil Aviation Department of (]ovcrnment of lndia) was in physical possession of the subject land from the year 1966-67 and that the petitioner installed Radio-Navigational Dquipment (VOR) on the said land and also constructed building which has been used for Aviation related purposes and from the year 1971 onwards, Radio- Navigational Aids are functional and operative for Safety Operations and boundary wall w,as constructed surrounding the subject land and a gate \\'as erected to protcct the subject land from encroachment and a Signboard showing name of the petitioner was put up to indicate petitioner's possession of the said property. Referring to the earlier correspondence, wherein the petitioner requested the respondents under Right to Information Act, 2OO5 to supply a copy of the Alienation Order in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner, as thc said document was misplaced by the Authorities, but neither the liespondents have denied the alienation of the said land nor supplied copy of the same to the t-1 petitioner. It is submitted that to the show cause notice dated

26.O4.1991 issued to the petitioner by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, the petitioner submitted that the subject land has becn in phvsical possession of the petitioner for the last more than (6) dccadcs and it is extremely important for VOR facility for safetv operatiolls of the Aircraft and therefore, it may not be in the intercst ol Air Safety to withdraw such a facility and eventually requested the (lovernment to drop resumption proceedings. Thereafter, there was no response from the respondents which gavc an imprcssion to the petitioner that the resumption issue in respect of the subject land was dropped at the Government level and petitioner continuously requested 3'd respondent, vide letters dated 28.03.2O00 and 28.O6.2000 etc to supply a copy of the allotment alienation order of the said land along with a copy of strb-dir.isiorr sketch of the subject land, in response to which, the Thahildar/3.a rcspondent by letter dated

31.O5.2O07 informed to the pctitioner stating that the Mandal Surveyor has demarcated the land in Sy.No.26 to an extent of Ac.9- OO guntas situated at Kancha-Gachibowli Village, which is in physical possession of tl'rc Airports Authority of India/ petitioner and also sent location sketch prcpared by the Mandal Surveyor. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 16.0 l.2OO8 to the Districr Collecror, Ranga Reddy District and requested him to interve,e and do the needful in the matter. It is further submitted that even though the order dated 18.03.2O08 1n W.P.M.P.No.7567 of 20OB in W.P. No.5813 of 2008 was communicated by Telegram to all the respondents, yet at the instance of the 3.d respondent, l)eputy Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board, made a lalsc complaint to S.H.O.Chandanagar P.S and alleged that petitioner illegally entered into the subject land and tried to damage its sign board. in the said circumstances, a legal notice dated 11.04.2008 was sent to the Thahsildar/3.d respondent as well as to the Deputy Executive Dngineer, A.P.Housing Lloarcl and informcd them that the petitioner is in lawful possession and cnjoymcrrt of the subject land to an extent of Ac.9-00 guntas since last slx (6) decades. After receipt of the said notice, dated I 1 .04.2008, ncither the Thahsildar nor the Deputy Executivc Engincer, A.l).l Iousing Board ald no other Authority interfered r.r'ith posse ssion and enjoyment of subject land.

15. It is furthcr submitted that earlier the Airport Director, National Airports Autl-roritl clatcd 25.06.199 1 addressed to the Secretary to CovernmcrIl, Rcr,enue [)cpartment, the relevant portion is extracted for relerencc: "the subjecl lanrl in 511.No.26 extent Ac.B.9 guntas was acquired by tLrc CertraL Couernment (Ciuil Auiation Department) for the purpose of operating a. Radio Nauigational Aid, which was installed and commissioned in the gear 1 971 and the said land u-tas used for that purpose, anri a copg of the Gozette 16 Notification issued in the month of March, 1988 bg the Gout. of India for installation of Radio Nauigational Aid was also enclosed to proue that the obstntction clearances haue been specif.ecl bg tle Gout. of lndia. It utas also poinlecl rntt in the said lelt.er clt. 26.06. 1991 that it can be seen that at7 area admeasuing 305 meters arouttd VOR facilitg has to be kept free of obstructions artd thus, r'Lon-construction in the area in qtestion, is intention.al and it l.s also a technical requirement for such a facility to ensure its optimal performance to achieue ultimate aim of safetg of aircraft operations. It was also specificallg pointed out in the sakl letter dt. 25 06. 1991 that the subject land. uas alienated in t'auour of the Central Gouernment in the year 1966-67, that h case of onA such resumption the same has to be referred to the Ministry of Ciuil Auiation, Gout. of India, uho is the lawful ouner of the subject in as much as the details o.f lhe alienation tuere not immediately auaila.ble tui.t.l t Llrc Petitioner on account of different Organiztttions in the Gout. of lrudia haue handled the records at different times and the efforts made by the Petitioner tt,ith the Marudal Reuenue Officer. Serilinganrapllg Ltlandal to obtain a copg of the alienation order could not be fructified and therefore, re-iterated its request to the Principal Secretary to Gout. , to supplg a copA of the alienation deed immediatelg to take furlher action in the matter. The Petitioner has also pointed oul that VOR facilitg is extremelg important for safety of aircraft operations and it maA not be in the interest off air safetg to utithdra ut such a Jacility uithout proper coordination -7 t1 with all the concerned agenctes and there was cnrrespondence thereafter and thus giuen an impression thctt the lssue ruas closed at the Gout. leuel."

16. It is further submitted that r,vithout reference to any of the above said corresponclcrrcc, thr' 3,,i rcspondcnt issued proceedings dated 09.01.2008 anrl directctl rcsumption oi the subject land unilaterally.

17. it is further submittcd that sincc the impugned proceedings dated 26.O2.2008 of Jttr rcspensl('1rt is suspe nclecl by this Court by a speaking order dated 18.03.2008 in W.P.M.l'].No.7567 of 2008 in W.P.No.SB13 of 2008, u,hich is in lbrcc as on date, the question of resumption of the said land does not arisc an<i that the petitioner is in continuous peaccfr,rl posscssion and cnjoyment of the subject land even as on date. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

18. Learned counscl lor the petitioner submits that the subject land u.as alienated in lhv<;ur ol Civil Aviation Department in the year 7966-67 and compensatiorr ivrrs paid bv C.W.D (Department) on behalf of Airports Auttrorit-t' of lndia (Civil Aviation Department) and V.O.R facility u,as installcd arrd oncc the show cause notice was issued in the year 199 I , a rcply u,as given to the Government on 26.04.7991, as such the M.lt.O has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceedings lr'ith uncluc haste . T8

19. Learned counsel for the petitioncr rvould further submit that it is no where disputed that thc land has becn alienated to the Civil Aviation Department olr thc olhcr hanrl it rras specifically' admitted as such the allegations arc factually incorrc<:t and as on today the subject land is in the physical possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitior-rcr u,ould ftrrl hcr submit the effect of suspension by virtue of interim ordcr dated i8.03.2O08 and any further proceedir-rgs wor-rld be a nullitv and in support of his case relied on a decision of l)ivision lJcnch ol' tl-ris Court betr,r,een K. VENKATESHWAR RAO V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERSI wherein it is hcld that n,hcr.r the impugned Order is suspended, it is temporarily u,ipcd out and does not exist in the eye of law. The relevant paragraph No.9, is cxlra<:ted hereunder: "Thcre is conccptual diffcrencc bctween the order of suspension and the order of stav granted bJ- a competent Court or Tribunal exercisir.rg appcllat c / rcvicu, jurisdiction. When an order of suspension ts passcd. Lcmporarilr, the order is wiped out and does not cxist in thc c.r'c of larr,. tf thc order of suspension is intcrlocutory in nalurc, its sun'ival depends on the final adjudication. I[ such ordcr is rcvcrsed or set aside, it would be ineffective from thc clate when it rvas suspended as an interim measure. [n case thc adjudication is one of confirmation, the order which is suspended, though inoperative during the period of operation of the order of suspension passed by thc Court. rvould stand revived only from the datc of thc linal ordcr o[ lhc Court affirming the same. The order of stay only mcans the ordcr rvhich has been staved '(2011 (6) ALD 463 DB) -. 19 I would not be operative from the date of passing of the stay order and it does not mean thnt thc ordcr has been wiped out from eistence. An order of stay gremted pending disposal of a writ petition or other proceeding, comes to an end with the dismissal of the substantivc procceding and it is the duty of the Court in such a case to put thc pa-rtics in the same position they would have been but for the interim orders of the Court".

20. Learned standing counscl arppcaring fbr respondent No.S submits that in the panchanama procr:cclings notice was not issued to the petitioner and he is not ar,"'are u hether the possession has been taken and submits l.hat thcrc arc n() mulation proceedings in favour of respondent No.5. Lcarned Assislzurl (]overnment Pleader for Revenue reiterated the contents of the counter but could not place any record in support ol his subrnissions

21. Heard both the learnt:d t:ounsel orr cithcr side and perused the material avaiiable on recorcl ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS:

22. Earlier this Court by an orck'r clatccl 31.07.2OO8 in W.P.No. 1525 of 2O0B had set-aside the order of the 4tr. respondent therein dated O9.0.1 .2O08 ancl allowed thc writ petition and kept it open for the respondents lo t?rko erppropriatc action in accordance with law. The operative portion of the serid order is extracted for reference: l0 "Admittedly, after lapse of 17 years of the said notice, dated 26-04-1991, the 4tt1 respondent passed the resumption order through impugned proceedings, dated 09- 01-2008, without considering thc explanation submitted by the petitioncr on 2ir 06- 1991, stating that the pctitioner has not filed an,r, rcpl.r 1)ursuant to thc r-]oticc dated 26-04 199I , arrd the land in qucstion is rcquired for public purposc. Further, the resumption order has been passed by the 4tt' respondent on O9-O1-2O08 whereas the notice had been issued b1,r the 1"t rcspondcnt on 26-04-199I. As a matter of fact, the 4th rcspondent has noL <:onsidt:red the explanation Iiled by the pctitioner on 25-O- i 99 1 . In fact, the 4Lh respondent, who passed the resumption order has not issued notice datcd 26-04-199l. Therefore, the 4th respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 25-06-199l and without taking into account thc present status of the land in question, passed the resumption order, dated O9-O1-2OO8. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the 4th respondent passed the impugned order without following thc principlcs of natural justice and the same is liablc to be sct asidc. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed settiirg aside the impugned order of thc 4.th rr:spondent, datcd 09 01-2OO8, and keeping it open for the rcspondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law."

23. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 by letter dated O8.O2.2OOB called upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the un- utilized subject land within one week and, the petitioner by letter dated 15.02.2O08 (trxhibit p-16) requested the Thahsildar (Deputy Qq[gctor Cadre), Serilingamaplly Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad for the reasons mentioned therein to grant two weeks time to submit reply to the said notice. ln the said letter, it was informed that the revenue records pertaining to the subject land reveals that the said land u,as acquircd / a llottcd in the name of the Civil Aviation Department and on a perusal of thzrl letter shows that a copy of revenue record was also cncloserl along with letter as Annexure-A.

24. It is pertinent to note that in the counter filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4, it appears that there are three panchanamas annexed i.e., parchanama daterl 25.O1.2008, 28.02.2008 and O3.O3.2008. In the aforesaid three panchanamas, on thc thrce occasions three different panchas '"verc assigncd nnrl no notice ,,vas given to the petitioner before taking rhe ph,r'siczil posscssion of the subject land. It is also pertinent to note that the rcslrmption orders vide proceedings No.Bi/l77ll2OOO clated 09.01.2008 of the 3.d respondent were set aside b_y this Court in W.P.No. 1525 of 2008 vide order dated 31.01 .2OO8. Thereaftcr, the impugned proceedings dated 26.O2.2OO8 wcre passcd bearing proceeding No.B1/ 177 I l'2OOO ancl consequ('nth', 2nd panchanama was recorded on 28.02.2OO8 filcd along with counter affidavit. This Court by order dated 18.03.2OO8 suspended the impugned order dated 26.02.2O08 passed by the 3.d respondent. Thereafter, another panchalama dated 03.011.2008 u'as recorded showing that 11 the physical possession of the land was handed over to the Mandal Revenue Inspector and pl-rvsical possession was taken over bv one C. Venkat Rama Raj r-r (Deputv lixecutive Errgineer, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board). In thc counter filed by respondent No.4, there is no reference pertair-rir-rr to 2,),1 panchanarna dated 28.02.2008 and whereas it q,as submittcd tl-rat the land was resumed vide proceedings dated 26.O2.2008 under cover of panchanama dated

03.03.2008. The resporrdcnl No.4 has recorded panchanama two times on the impugnccl orcler dated 26.02.2008 and was silent about the panchanama proccedings dated 28.O2.2008. Even in the implead petition filed by the respondent No.5, the implead petitioner submitted that subsequent to the proceedings dated

26.O2.2OO8, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sherilingampally Manda-l, Rangareddy District resumed the land on behalf of the Government of Andhrar I)radcsh by panchanama dated 2a.O2.2OOA. Subsequer-rtly, thc said Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sherilingampally Mancial, Ilangareddy District on behall of the Government given pl-r1'sical possession of the lald to the 5e respondent (A. t). Housing Board) under panchanama dated

03.03.2OO8. The cntirc re sumption proceedings were made without putting notice to the petitioner.

25. On the issue of pror:cdure to be followed while recording panchanama, this Court in W.P.No.11293 of 2009 frled by M/s. 2l A.P.Electrical Equipment Corporation V. Thahsildar and W.P.No.23477 of 201O filcd by M/s. E.C.E. Industries Limited Vs. The Special Officer and Competent Authority passed common order dated O3.11.2022 u,herein W.P.No.2l)477 of 2O1O was hled aggrieved by the panchanama procecdings ',r,herein the respondent authorities were allegedly taking over the possession of the land and attempting to physically dispossess the petitioner, even after repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. In thc said order, this Court meticulously examined thc pr'o<:cclu rc to bc adopted during the panchanama proceedings r.l'hilc terl<ing o\'(,'r possession of any land. The relevant paragraphs are extracled lor reference: "22. Dven tl-rough thc rvord '[)anchanama' is not defined anyrvhere in law, thc Courts, lawyers and the litigant public are well aware of thc term panchanama and its significance, more so, in civil and criminal litigations. The panchanama is the documcnt, which is prepared at the subjcct site in the prescncc of 3 to 5 pcrsons who are not only independcnt pcrsons but ;rlsr.r ,,r'c ll rcspected in the locality of the subject propcrty. 1-hc panchanama is prepared in their prcsence usually noting dou,n as to u,hy they were called or thc purpose for u,hich the panchanama is prepared, recording the cvcnts that havc taken place in their presencc. LJsually, Ll'rc namc, addrcss, age and occupation of the panchas is notcd down in the panchanama besides noting the date and time and place where the panchanzrma is prepared and a.lso the purpose for which the panchanama is preparcd, what action has been taken. Thc panchanamzr u'ill bc plcparcd in thc presence of the owners / possessors o[ the subject sitc and the panchas. / /' 24 Usually, the panchanama will be accompanied by a site plan, which is prepared cither by the person writing the panchanaira or bv a compctent surveyor, who aJter surveying, demarcating and mcasuring the land in question will prepare a rough skctch indicating the subject land in the site plzrn annexed to the panchanarna. After the preparation of both thc panchanama and the site plan, the panchas ra,ill be read ovcr thc contents of the panchanama and the endorsement or signature of the panchas will be taken both on the palchanama and also on ttre site plan prepared. The person who has prepared ttre panchanama and site plan will also sign both th<: documents, so also the signaturc of thc ou'nr: r/ possessor will also be taken on both the documcnts. 'l'he panchanama records what the panchas have seen/observed, thc action takcn. The primary intention behind the prcparation of the panchanama is to safeguard against possible tricks and unfair dealings on the part of the officers, who may indulgc in malpractices. In Yakub Abdut Razak Memon us. State of Maharashtraz, t}re Hon'ble Supremc Court has observed that Panchanama is a document hauingl legal bearings which records euidence ond Jindings lhat en olftcer makes at the scene of on offence/ cime. I lou<:uer, it is not onl11 th.e record.ings of the scene of cime bul also o.f angwhere else which mag be reLated to the oime/ olfence aru1 from where inciminating euidence is likelg to be coLlected. The doarment so prepared needs to be siglnecl bg the inuestigtoting olJicer u.tho prepares the some arLd at least ltg trro independent and impartial utitnesses called 'Panchas' so also bg the concemed partg. The witnesses are required to be not onlg impartial but also 'respectable'. 'Respectable' here toould mean a person who is not dis-reputed. Ctnce should also check if the witnesses are in their senses ot the timt: of panchanoma proceedings. Only 'coJ 20 ti sc 230 t5 majors are to be taken as pilnesses as minors utitness may not tDithstand the LegaL scrutiny.

23. The above stated legal position makes it abundantly clear that whenever a panchanama is prcpared, the same has to be done duly putting the actual owner/ interested person on notice. That the panchas should be of reputed / respcctable persons of the locality where the panchanama is being drafted. The datc and time on which the panchanama is prepared and the name, age and address of the panchas should bc mentioncd in the said panchanama. After preparation of the panchanama, if it is prepared by othe r than onc o[ the pan<:has, the same should be read ovcr and explainetl to thc panchas, and the signatures of the panchas, the person preparing the panchanama ald also the land owner/ interested person should be attested at the bottom of the panchanama." 26 - Thereafter, the matter was carriecl to the LIon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4526-4527 of 2024. The Ilon'ble Supreme Court had confirmed the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court and the relevat-rt paragraph conccrning the panchanama procedure is extracted lor reference: "45. It \.as pointed out on behalf of the appellant herein that not onh. the factory is still running on the subject-land but therc arc multi-storeyed residential buildings also constructed therein. It \d,as also pointed out that entire lald is encompassed by a boundary wall and the gate is manned by security guard. It was also brought to our notice that the so callcd panchnama does not contain any site map or distinctivc boundarics with special CA Nos. 4526-4527 ol 2024 Page 132 of 145 tlivisions whatsoever. { l6 The entire extent of I,63679 sq.mtrs. is bound by one compound wa1l. It scems that the Division Bench in its impugned judgment has observed that there is no requirement undcr thc statLltc for obtaining the signature of the landowner in thc panchnama or liling of the affidavits by the panchas. Whcn State Authoritit:s try to take law in their own hands by hook or crook and rely on bogus paper panchnamers for [l-rc prl rposc of asserting that actual physical posscssion ',r,zrs taken ovcr belore the date of the repeal, then it is imperativc that the signature of the landowner must be obtained in the panchnama so as to attach sanctity and authenticity to such exercise of taking over of actual possr:ssion. Affidavits of the panchas would also attach gre at sanctit-\, to thc samt:."

27. On a pcrusal of proccr:dings, dated 26.O2.2OO8, the respondents admits thal the land for an extent of Ac.9-00 guntas in Sy.No.26, Kancha Cachihowli Village, Serilingamapally Mandal, Rangareddy District is in possession of Civil Aviation Department (Airport Authoritv ol India) and remained un-utilized. in the proceedings dated 26.O2.2OO8, the respondcnt did not state which of those conditions of alienation q,ere violated by the petitioner and under what provision of larv the said un-utilized land has been proposed for resurnpl ion ',r,ithout any sanction from the Government. Yet an othcr aspcct to be noted is that the respondents without following the procedure contemplated under law had broken the lock put-up by the petitioner to the gate and de-faced the sign board erected near the compound wall. Even the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherilingampally by letter dated Z 21

24.02.7990 addressed to the petitioner has r:alled for the extent of land utilized particulars ref'erring to the Assistant Secretary (Assignment) CLR's Office, A.P.l{yderabad and Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District spot inspection datcd 22.02.7990, wherein it '..l,as observed that thc land alicnatcd in lavour ol the petitioner was Ieft un-utiiized and cerrain iriformal,ion was requested to be furnished. Even as per the correspondcncc betu,een the Central P.W.D, Madras Central I)ivision (North) a sum of Rs.8900/- was paid by C.P.W.D on behalf o1 the Civil Aviation Department, Government of India and acquired the land to an extent of Ac.8-90 guntas in S-y.No.26, Kancha Gachibowli village in the year 1966 for the construction ol' VC)R station and thc said VOR station was installed in the subject land in the year t971 and the same was published bv thc Government of lndia in lhc (iazette Notihcation in March, 19BB and the sr-rbjcct land is used fbr Air Salety Operations, I which has not been spccilically dcrricd in thc counter. The said fact goes to show that the petitioner was very much in possession of the subject lancl

28. [rurth er, on ai perr-rsal ol the leltler dated 25.06.1991 addressed by petitioner to Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Dcpzrtment, Secretariat, Flyderabad it was specially inlbrmed that it \\'ill trc tteccssar.\, to rel'er the resumption question to the Ministq, of Civil Aviation, Government of India, who Itt are the rightful owners of the land and that the details of the alienation arc not immediatelv available with the petitioner AS different organizations had bcen in possession of the records at different times and that funrishing of the alienation deed would enable the ministrv of civil aviertion to take a decision in this connection. '1'he responclcnts by thr: impugned order seeks resumption ol thc r-rn-ulilizcd land. hou"evcr submits that as per their records there is no evidcrrcc of allotment or alienation of the land in favour of the petitioncr. ln such a scenario, the respondents ought to havc takcrr appropriate steps in accordance with law rat he r than issuir-rg impugned notice wherein the petitioner rvas callcd for information regarding resumption of un- utilized land.

29. Yet another important a spect to be noted is that the respondents are the custodians of the records and in respect of the subject lands, r'ro re\rcnLrc recorcl u'as fiIcd b-v the respondents to show the status of the subject land and has only dealt with the request of the petitioner for furnishing a copy of the sale deed and instead of verifying/ correlating r.r ith the revcnue records and while admitting the possession of thc pctitioner, passed the impugned orders. The respondent No.3 is <;ontradicting to their own records, and at this point of time cannot lay any claim on the subject property seeking resumption of thc subjcct lands, which are in the t- 2L) possession of the petitioner. Admittedlv, no notice has been issued to the petitioner at thc timc of panchanama proceedings and that no proceedings have been issucd alienating the said land to the respondent No.5 and no docunrcnt has been placed before the Court to that extent.

30. Eariier this Court by order datccl 31.01.2008 in W.P.No.1525 of 20OB had set-aside the resumpttrn proceedings dated

09.01.2008. Again the respondcnt No.4 issued Show Cause Notice dated 08.02.2OO8 on simiiar lincs or.r ttrc same subject property, as such considerin g lhc prima tiic<', this Court by order dated

18.03.2008 has suspended thc impugncd proceedings dated

26.O2.2004.

31. The content of sub.ject notice datr:d 08.02.2008 and the resumption orders datecl 26.O2.2OO8 vide proceedings I No.BlI77l12000 dirccting pctirioncr to hand over possession of the subject land, r.r'ithout accordir-rg an_y opportunity of hearing based on the earlier communical ions bclrveen the petitioner and respondents and u,ithor-rt informing thi: Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India is noL onl-y imltropcr but also against the principles of naturai justice and is contrary to the spirit of Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court ol A.i). in W.P.No.1525 of 2008 and the entire panchanama procccdings are not in accordance to the common orders passcd by this Court in W.P.No.11293 of 2OO9 -10 and W.P.No.23477 ol 2010 datcd 03.1 1.2022 and conhrmed by Hon"ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4526-4527 of 2024.

32. In that vir:\v ol thc mattcr, thc impugned order dated

26.O2.2OO8 sceking rcsurnpLion ol unutilizcd subject land from the petitioner is bereft of reasons, lacks jurisdiction and without any reference/ intimation to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India is arbitr:rrv, illegarl zrncl (:ontran' to principles of natural .justice, Article 14 and 300-A ol Constitrrtion of India and is hereby set-aside

33. Accordingly, the ',r.rit petition is allos'cd. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH, on this Thursday, The Twentieth Day Of November Two Thousand And Twenty Five Sd SREENIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. hravan Kumar (For His Lordship's Kind Pe r) To,

1. The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Assisgnmenllll) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakidikapool, Hyderabad. 3. The Tahsildar, (Deputy Collector Cacdre), Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Mandal.Rqrlenye lnspector, Sherilingampally Mandal, Sherilingampally , Ranga Reddy District.

5. One CC to SRI V.JAGAPATHI, Advocate. tOpUCl 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] , -

7. One CC to SRI B.BUCHI REDDY, (SC FOR TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD). [OPUC]

8. 11 LR.Copies 9. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. \

10. The Secretary, Advocates' Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 1 1 . Two CD Copies. PN{K BSK tB HIGH COURT DATED:2011112025 I t\ JTAT€ o c) 1 3 FtB 2026 \ t SPP.TC -\' * ORDER WP.No.5813 of 2008 t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ a b A