1. T.Vara Prasad v. I The State of AP

9. B.Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Janga Reddy, aged about 44 yearc, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Raavirala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District '10. B.Premalatha, Wo.Madhava Reddy, aged about 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o. Raavirala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 1 1. M.Venkatamma (Died) '12. B.Pushpamma, D/o- Venkateshwar Reddy, aged about 65_ years,_ Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o. Raavirala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

13. G.Narayana (Died)

14. P.Sailamma (Died) (Respondents 6 to 14 are the petitioners 5 to 10, 12, 16 & 17 in W.P.No.14096/2008) ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from the land of an extent of Ac.30.00gts in Sy. No. 21, 22 and 23 of Raavirata Village, [\rlaheswaram l\rlandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.BHANU PRASAD, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.PURUSHOTAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSIIC The Court made the following: ORDER l I I I I l I I I I I , i ! I I i ; ! I Lf B I I HON,BLE SFJ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA \IIRIT PETITI ON No. I 4085 ()F 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Gazette Notilrcation No. G'l 12376120O4, dated O4-O2-2OOS issued under Seclion a (1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire Acs.5O'O6 guntas of land in Survey No' 2 1' 22 and 23 of Raviryala Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District including fhe Award bearing No C l 165 l 2OO5 ' dated 25.10.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law' It is the case of petitioncrs that subjecl land ''"'as 2. acquired for expalsi.on of i{ardr,'are Park proposed by the then A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited' i e the Sth respondent, presenlly Telangana SLate trduslrial Infrasl-ructure Corporation Limited and that petitioners 2' 3 and 4 are protected tenants and supportcd by 38-tr certihcates issued under the provisions of the A.P (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and petitioners 5 to 17 are purchasers oi land from them under registered sale deeds and their names were mutated in revenue recorcls and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to them under the provisions of the A P Rights in Land ancl Pattadar Passbooks Act' 1971' It is also 2 their case, before ordering mutation and issurng pattadar passbooks and title deerrs, the authorilies concerned have made discrete cnquiry and then only issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and they are ln possession and enjol.mcnt o[ the subject property. It is also their case that they are all small farmers and except this small extent, they do not have any other land for their livelihood and except cultivation, they do not knou, the other sourcc of living being illiterates_ (A) The so called invoking pattadar and It is also the specific case of petitioncrs that rvhile of Lakshmi gtvtng the impugned Notification, the name Narasimha Swamy Temple was shown as dispensed wirh rhe enquiry under Seclion 5 urgency cl:ruse under Section 17 (41 of thc Acl acqulsttlon through the Notification ancl dispensing w,ith cnqutry under Section S (A) is contrary to the very scheme of the Act. It is further alleged that 4(1) notification is required to be published in tr,r,o popular newspapers having wide circulation, but, it was published only in one newspaper Varthaman which is not a ne\4'spaper known to public and it was not published in any other newspaper as required under larn,. It is contended that for the purpose of establishing Hardware park, hundreds of acres of land !r,as acquired by the State falling in different J villages and that land owners, who are similarly situated, Illed Writ Petition No. 19579 of 2002 questioning the Notihcation and declaration under Section 6. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 04.11.2OO4 following the direction given in Writ Petition No.2l712 ol 2OO2, d.ated 25.O4.2OO3 whereunder the iearned Single Judge directed the authorities concerned to issue notice under section 5 (A) to conduct an enquiry and against the said order, when Wril Appeal No. 294 of 2005 and batch was filed, the same was dismissed on 17.10.20O5 upholding the order of the Icarned Single Judge; therefore, '{,ithout conducting an enquiry under Section 5 (A), proceeding further and passing an Award is illegal and arbitrary. It is also stated that they filed Writ Petition No. 17763 of 2OO5 questioning the action of au thorities invoking urgency clause by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5(A) oi the Act and the said Writ petition was directly listed before the Hon'ble Division Bench along wilh other connected Writ Petitions and all of them were dismissed on 26. 1O.2005 with the following order: In view of the Judgment of this court in WA- No. 291/2OO5 dated 17.10.2OO5 these writ petitions shall also stand and batch, dismissed." It is the specihc case of petitioners that they are in possession of subject land and that they were not dispossessed 4 by following the provisions of Land Acquisition Act in the name of acquiring land and compensation was also not paid to them. Petitioncrs asserted at various places of writ affidavit that possession u/as not laken from them having,invokecl urgcncy clause.

3. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition filed counter on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3. He assertcd that thcy have followecl the procedure by pubiishing 4(1) notification in Varthaman (Telugu) and News Boom (trnglish). Similarlv, Section 6 declaration in Vision Andhra (Telugu), Indian Express (English) and subsequently notices under Sections 9 (3) and 1O o[ Land Acquisition Act have been issued to all the persons inLerested for filing their objectrons, fixing the date of hearing as 31.03.2005 and also another noLice dated 24.06.2OO5 while fixing date of hearing as 1 1.07.2005. On 1 1.O7.2005, all thc persons interested attended the award enquiry and Iiled their respective claims. That being the position, petitioners fiied Writ Petitions No. 17763 Lo 17766 of 2OO5 challenging the draft declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Act by dispensing with 5(A) enquiry and the said Writ petitions were dismissed by the Divisional Bench on 26.10.2OOS and that after completion of statutory formalities, Award under Section 11 (1) was passed on 5 on 09.11.2005

25.10.2005 and Possesslon of land was handed over to the However, because of the title department dispute, matter was referred to the District Court under Section 30 by depositing compensation under Section 31 and names of all the petitioners were included in the said reference and that petitioners, without approaching the District Court' R'R' District where reference under section 3O is pending' approached this Court and fietd the present Writ Petition' It is also the casc of Land Acquisilion Collector that as per revenue records for 2O03 and 20O4, lands were classihed as Bndor'l'ment lands and pattaclar passbooks of petitioner were cancelled by the 'Joint Collector on 26.08.2003 on the ground that land belongs to Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy temple' The Division Bench disposed of several writ Petitions filed by land owners challenging land acquisition proceedings initiated for IT park and related projects in the Villages of Gopannapally and Vattinagulapally following the juclgment in Writ Appeal No 294 of 2O05 and batch' dated I7. iO.2OO5. Aggrieved thereby' petitioners carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by fiIing (13) SLPs and the Supreme CourtinCANo.lTSlof2oo8arisingoutofSI,PNo.24Tl5of 2O05 and batch dated O4'03'2OO8 restored the matter and directed the Division Bench for fresh disposal' therefore' the I I i I r i I I ) I N t i I 6 contention of pctitioncrs that in view of dismissal of Writ Appeal, order in Writ Petition was conhrmed, is incorrect. I t is also statcd that rvhile dismissing Writ petition No. 17763 of 2005 fited by pctitroners, this Court did not give any direction [o lor conducting 5(A) enquiry, the refore, thc responden t contention of petitioners that 5 (A) enquiry was conducted by the authorities and entire acquisition proceedings are illegal is not tenable. It is also assertcd lhat in vieu,of thc invocation ol. urgenclr clause, conducting enquiry under Section 5 (A) does not arise and as WriL Pe tition No. 17763 of 20OS filed by petitioners was dismissed u,ithout any direction, there is no need to conduct any enquiry under Section S (A). It is the assertion of Land AcqlLisilion Offlcer in Para Nos. 1 1, 13 and 15 that the-y handed over possession to Lhe Sth rcspondent on 09.11.2005.

4. The 5rh respondent filed its counter through Manager (Law). It is thcir case that Writ petition does not disclosc altJr substance warranting interference under Article 226 of Lhc Constitution and all the averments made therein are denied except to the extent they specifically admitted. It is asserted that thcy sent requisition to acquire the subject land which forms part and parcel of total land in an extent oI Acs.810. i4 guntas for establishment of Hardware park 7 ? expansion by AP AIIC and that land was acquired by following thc procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and possession u,as delivered to them on 09.11.2OO5 and the award was passed on 25.10.20O5 and that Land Acquisition Officer, while passing the Award, have considered the case of petitioners and that land in question belongs to Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy Temple and the said lands were donated as grant i.e. Mashrutul-Khidmath Inam to temple and therefore, the claim of petitioners is imaginary and that land was acquired after thoroughly enqu iring into lhe matter. Heard Sri K. Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel

5. on behalf of Sri G. Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSIIC.

6. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and after perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are: 1 . Whether State has followed meticulously the procedure for publication of notifrcation under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? I 8 -.

2. Whether enquiry under Section 5-A is not necessary as contcnded by the 3.d respondent Land Acquisition Collector?

3. Whether the land had vested in the State by taking actual physical possession pursuant to Section 4 (1) notifrcation? 4. Whether the notihcation issued under Sec. 4 (1) including the award is liable to be set aside POINT No.7: Petitioners contended that the 3d

7. respondent had not followed the procedure in publishing the notihcation in tu,o daily newspapers having circulation in the locality and one should be in regional language. What law envisaged rvith regard to publication of notification is to bring it to the notice of affccted parties about the intention of the State to acquire their land for public purpose. Therefore, publication in two daily newspapers is not an empty formality. The compulsory acquisition is one step defeating the property rrghts of the individual. Therefore, when such a valuable right of individuals is sought to be taken away by the State, they cannot behave ancl act in a mechanical and arbitrary way causing injustice to Lhe land owners.

8. It is settled 1aw that Lhe District Collector shall cause publication of notifica[ion in the District Gazette as well as in two newspapers; one in vernacular language having circulation in the locali[r means, publication in newspapers ha(ng wide circulation. In this case, admittedly, the notification I I I I I I I l 9 under Section 4(1) was Published in Telugu newspaper 'News Bhoom'. It is the newspapers Varthaman' and trnglish newspaper specihc case of petitioners that Varthman' and 'News Bhoom' papers are not even heard and known to public as newspapers circula ting in the locality and mere publication in two is not sufficient and the said newspapers shouid reasonable circulation in the locality' The 3'd have some respondent could not establish that these two newspapers are having some circulation in the locality ln Telugu' ne\Mspapers like Bena<lu, Andhra Jyothi, Vaartha, Andhra Prabha, etcetera, have u,rde circulation and known to one and all; Varthaman' is notevenknowntopublic.InEnglish,newspaperslikeHindu, Indian trxpress, Deccan Chronlcle' Times of India have wide circulation. 'Neu's Bhoom' is nol known to anyone' When public is not even known and heard about the said news papers' there is no possibilily of having reasonable circulation' The 3'd respondent except saying that they published in Varthaman' ancl 'News Bhoom', could not assert and establish these papers have at least some reasonable circulation in the locaiity' The Hon'blc Supreme Court in Special Deputg Collector' Land Acquisition CMDA Vs' Siao- Prakaso;mr while dealing with the ' zot t1t1 scc a:o t0 aspect of publication of notification under Section 4(1), held that if there is failurc to publish in two daily nervspaper or if pubiication is in turo newspapers thal have no circulation at all in the locality, r,r,'ithout anything more , notification under Section 4(l) of the Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings vurll be vitiatcd, on Lhe ground of non-compliance with essential conditior-r of Section 4(l ). In this case, peti[ioners asserted that these publications rvcrc madc in the newspapers rvhich are not even known to thcm as well as public and n,hen there are oLher proper ne\r.spapers u,hich arc widely in circuiation, publication made in Lhese two newspapers is a deliberate mischief on the part of respondents and this aspect could not be ansu,cred by tl-rcm, Therefore, rhis Court has no hesitation ro come to a conclusion the notlfica[ion under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the said newspapers dcliberatell. ancl it did not mect the requiremcnt. Therefore, this court holds that vcry publication of notihcation under seclior-r 4 (1) was made in violation and spirit of the Act, therefore, the said publication is bad in law.

9. POINT No.2: In this case, it is clear from the counter hled by thc Sth respondent that large exten[ of Acs. g1O.14 gu[tas of lzrncl was acquired lor the purpose ol establishment of I I I I I ) i I 7 1l Hard,,l,arePark.Inthecounterfiledbythe3rdrespondenton behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, it is mentioned in Para No' 8 that "Hon'ble Divisional Bench of Hon'ble High Court had disposed of several writ petitions filed by the owners challenging the LA proceedings initiated lor IT Park and other related projects in the villages ot (iopannapally and Vattinagulapally foliowing the judgment in Writ APPeal No. 294 of 2005 and batch, dated 17.10.2005. Thcreforc, it is clear for the sake of the Sth respondent, large extents of lands situated in the villages of Gopannapally, VatLinagulapally and Raviryala were acquired through differcnt notifications The owners of lands have hled variouswritpeti|ionsandalearnedSingleJudgealreadypassed order in Writ Petition No. 21712 of 2OO2, dated 25 'O4 '2003 and also ir-t Writ Petition No. 19579 of 2OO2 ' dated 04' 1 1 2004 directing rcspondents to issue notice for an enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Act. The said order was challenged in Writ Appeal Nos. 294, 1139, 1142 and 115O of 20O5' wherein the Division Bench by order dated 07 10 2OO5 conhrmed the order of learned Single Judge. Subsequently, when similar Writ Petitions w-ere filed, including Writ Petition No 17763 of 2O05 by petitioners, .they were directiy lis[ed before the Division Bench which passed the order as under: t2 " In vierv of the judgment of this court in WA. No. 29q/2OO5 and batch. dated 17.10.2OO5, these wrii petitions also stand dismissed no order as to costs.' In fact, in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2OO5 and batch, thc order of the learnccl Single.Ju<Ige dirccting tl-re authori[ies to issue notice and conduct an enquiry under section 5 (A) of the LA Act was upheld. When Writ Petition No. 10879 of 2O05 and batch was disposed of in view of the order in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2005, it means rcspondents have to follorv lhe orders ol t he le arnecl Single .Judqe to conduct enquiry undcr section 5 (A). Simply, if the Division Bench dismissed Writ petitions No. 1Og79 of 2O05 and batch, then it is a different situation, but, in this case, the Hon'ble Divisiorr Bench specifically observcd, in vieu, of the Judgment in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2005 and batch, thcse Writ Petitions were also dismissecl. Therefore, the stand of respondents that Writ Petition filed by petitioners was dismissed and there is no nced to go for an encluir-v under SecLion 5 (A) of the Act is baseless. Under these circumstances, the understanding of Respondcnts 1 to 3 in respect of the order in Writ Petition No. 1O879 ol 2OO5 and batch, dated 26.1O.2OO5 is incorrect and they have not conducted an enquiry uncler Section 5 (A). The conduct of enquiry as required uncler Section 5 (A) is mandatory and any such violation viliatcs thc wholc ) I I I I I d ..1 t-l acquisition proceedings as helcl by the Hon'Lrle Supreme Court in Anand Singh a S;tolte of UPe following the law laid down in Babu Ratn u Stdte of Haryanas' Therefore' wrongly understanding the ordcr of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 10879 ol 2005 and batch, dated' 26'10'2OO5, not conducting 5(A) enqutry is bad in law and therefore, Notification issued under Section 4 (1) cannot be sustained in Law' 1O. POINT No.S: Peti lioners asserted that they are in possession and hacl not lost the same kry virtue of the notification impugned in the Writ Petition' Respondents 1 to 3 stated that they delivered possession Lo the 5t1' respondent on 09-11-2005, but they are unable to say on which date they have taken possession from petitioners' Without the land actually taking possession, the question of vesting with the State does not arise. When the land has not vested as per law' the State will not be in a position to deliver the same to the beneficiary' In Shcrkuntalo Yadaa u. Stdte of Haryanaa, the Hon'b1e Apex Court held tha[ unless and until possession is taken in accordance with iaw, possession cannot be delivered to the beneficiary for whom the land acquisition proceedings took ' 20 10(t t)scc 242 ' lzooo; to scc 1 l s ' izoto; ta scc 233 t4 place. In another judgment between Prahlad Singh u Union of Indiqs, the Apex Court held that wilhout taking actual physical possession, land shall not vest in the State- The Larger Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex courl in Indoor Development Authoritg u Manohdr ral6, it was held that thc mode of taking possession under 1894 Act and as contemplatecl under Section 24 (2) is drawing inquest report I mcmorandum. Thcrcfore, there must be some panchanama or inquest rcport to believe Lhat posscssion was taken bl, the State from the farmers. In this case, Respondents 1 to 3, except saying that they dclivered possession to ihe 5m respondent through panchnama dated 09- 1 1-2005, are unable to place any evidence in spite of serious contest dcl-r}.i1g taking of possession by the Statc. L-r view.of thc controversv with regard to taking of possession, thrs Court has called for a status report by appointir-rg Advocate Commissioners, who reported that on the datc of inspection, they founcl vcgetables gror,'",n by pctitioners and existence of cattle and cattle sheds with bore-wcll and electricity Connections. Therefore, this Court has no hcsitation to hold that respondents have not taken possession of land from petitioners and. land did not vest in the State to cleliver . 2-Dl.d(s) scc 386 " 2020 (8) SCC 129 15 possession to the 5ft respondent and the plea of possesslon delivered to the 5d' respondent cannot be believed' and the possession of land remained with petitioners'

11. Upon perusal of the entire record and after noticing thestandinthccounterslrledbyrespondents,itisevidentthat Acs.8l0.14guntasweresoughttobeacquiredforthepurpose of establishing hardware park and in that connection' respondentauthoritieshavenotconduclcdthemselvesproperly in following the due procedure in publication of notihcation and taking delivery of possession Hence' this Court finds fault q'ith respondents in making paper publication as weil as taking actual phYsical Possession' POINT No'4 : In view of the findings given in the 12. above paragraphs, the notihcation publishcd in AP Gazette No' Gll2376/2OO4, dated: 04 O2-2OOS and the Award bearing No' ClL65l2OO5, dated 25 10'2005 cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, the notifrcation as well as the Award are liable to be set-aside. The Writ Petition is accordingly' allowed' setting 13. aside the Notification published in Gazette dated O4'02 2OO5 andtheAwarddated25.lo.20o5inrespectofthelandinan I 16 extent of Acs.50.O6 guntas in Survey Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of Raviryala Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. No costs-

1.4. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if an1, shall stand closcd. That Rule Nisi hg: made Absolute as above witness The Hon'bte sRt suJoy pAUL, The n"ti"g Chi"; iiiti". on *.,ii Friday, the Twenty Eighth Day of February, fwJrnouiana anu rweniv ri;;:, '"- //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. RAJ GOPAL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue (L.A) Depart Hyderabad. State of Telangana. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapoot, Hyderabad 2 3. The Special Hyderabad. TherTahsildar/Mandal Revenue officer, lrlaheshwaram [r,4andal, Ranga Reddy Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition), lnternational Air port, nt, Secretariat, Saifabad, 4 ' Pz rish ra m e na van'' Fatem Jii' The Secretary. Telanoana State. Industrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd. "' n,iro' " dJ.ffi |,.d; : tU[:J. r[-'i. J|"."f One CC to SRt G.pURUSHOTAM REDDy, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRt L.pRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSIC [OPUC] Two CCs to Gp FOR LAN.D ACeUlSlTlON, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies D 6 7 8 o BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 t I I ORDER WP.No.14086 of 2008 t dl3 tuB 20ffi I'ATC" \: i) 'j t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS o\ i I l