The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of allotment of the land admeasuring Ac.l1.17 gts bearing in Sy.No-287 of Shankarpally village and Mandal, Ranga REddy District to any other company or firm etc l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WP MP. NO: 28136 OF 2008) Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to stay the sale or any kind of transfer of lands bearing in Sy.No.2B7 of Shankarapally village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District admeasuring Ac.11. 17 gts pending disposal ofthe above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.SHRAVYA, rep., SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.5&6 : SRI JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, SC FOR GENCO W.P.No.21546 OF 2008 Between:

1. Nafeez Begum, Wo.Sri Salamaged, Housewife H.No.749-C N.G.O.s Colony' Vanathalipuram,Hyderabad-70

2. Asif Zahan,, Wo Khaza Meeran, Housewife H.No.749-C N.G.O.s Colony, Vanathalipuram, Hyderabad-70 ...PETITIONERS j AND I The State of A P, reP bY its Secreta riat. HYderabad Secretary of lndustrial of lndustries A P

2.TheSpecialDeputyCollectorLandAcqusition(lndustrie^s),officeoftheRanga ' i&iiDi;i;ic-i -io-t 3. The Chief Commisstoner Land Administration' Nampally' Satation i6ciorate, Kh a i ra ta bad, R a nsd Redd v D istri ct Road,NamPallY, HYderabad

4. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Collectorate' Khairatabad' Hyderabad 5 The Transco, Rep.by its tvlanaging Director'Hyderabad 6' The AP Genco, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairathabad, Hyd- rep., by its Managing Director. (R6 is impleaded as per C.O., dt"t9/'11l09 in WPMP No'4648/09) ...RESPoNDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the cQnstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed,therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or any other appropriate writ or writs or directions /s more particularly inthenatureofwritofMandamusdirectingtherespondentstohandovertheactual physical and vacant possession of land admeasuring 400 sq Yards in Sy'No'287 of Shankarpally (V) Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist to the petitioners by holding the respondents have failed to comply the provisions of Company acquisition in ChapterToftheLandAcqursitionactandconsequentlydeclarethenoticeunder Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act dt 14-02-1996 is illegal'arbitrary and u nconstitutional. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(WPMP. NO:2 8141 0F 2008) PetitionunderSection,l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtostayof allotment of the land admeasuring Ac.11-17 Gts bearing in Sy No 2BT of Shankarpally (V) Mandal,Ranga Reddy Dist to any other company of firm' * f l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP . NO: 28140 OF 2008) Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of sale or any kinda of transfer of lands bearing Sy. No.287 of Shankarpally (V) I\ilandal,Ranga Reddy Dist admeasuring Ac.11-17 Gts pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.SHRAVYA, rep., SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION counser for the Respondent No.5&6 , 3E'J63tt,ltTAN REDDY' The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONO URABLE SRI WSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.215 43 &2t546 ()F 200E COMM ON ORDER: W.P.No.21543 of 2008 is filed for the following relief: "... to issue a writ or any appropriate writ, order or writs or direction/s more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to handover the actual, physical and vacant possession of land measuring 100O sq. yards in Sy.No.287 of Shankarpally Village and mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioners by holding the respondents have i"il"d to comply the provisions of company acquisition, in chapter 7 of the Land Acquisition Acl and consequently declare the notice under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act dated illegal, arbitrary and 74.02.1996 is unconstitutional." W.P.No.21546 of 2OO8 is frled for the following relief: "... to issue a writ or aly appropriate writ, order or writs or direction/s more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to handover the actual, physical and vacant possession of land measuring 400 sq. yards in Sy.No.287 of Shankarpally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioners by holding the respondents have iril.d to comply the provisions of company acquisition, in chapter 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, and consequently declare the notice under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act dated illegal, arbitrary and 14.02.1996 is unconstitutional." I I I 2

2. During the course of hearing, Ms. Shra',ya, learned counsel representing Mr. Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submit that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by order dated 1 1.O9.2024 passed in W.P.No.21483 of 2008 and batch.

3. In vicw of the above said submission. these writ petitions are dismissed in terms of the order dated

11.O9.2024 passed in W.P.No.21483 of 2OO8 and batch. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To, '1. One CC to SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] 3 One CC to SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, SC FOR APGENCO IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the Order, dated 11-09-2024 in W P No 214B3 of 2008 and batch to thrs Order) BSK BS _----:--iEF_ ria..- ----'--G-- HIGH COURT DATED:1210212025 ( BT, I'J 05 rlJ6 206 * o { ,r E\r ) \r',t' c. I t COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.21543 & 21546 of 2008 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS € HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PET ITION Nos.21483 2t549 2L 576 2 1555 of 2OO8 ^nd coMMON ORDER: The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order'

2. W.P.No.21483 of 2OO8 is taken up as leading case to decide the lis in these cases. The said writ Petition, under Article 226 0f the Constitutton of India, is filed seeking following relief: '' . ro r.s-suc a Writ or anu oppropriate utit or wits direction/ s more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing lhe respondents to hanrlouer the c.ctual, phgsicat and uacQnt posse'ssion of land acTmeosunng 4OO Sq. Yards in Sg.No.287 of Shankarpatlg Village and Manrlc.l, Ranga ReddA Disl to the petitionerc bA holding the respondents haue failed to complg the prouisions of compang acquisition, in chapter 7 of the Lanrl Acquisition Act, and consequentlA declare the notice under Section 4 (1) of Lancl Acquisition Act dated'l4' 02'1996 s illegal' orbitrar4 a,tcl u tlconstltutio nal. . " lt is stated that the petitioners

3. admeasuring 200 sq.yards each bearing Plot Nos lO and 11 under purchased two plots .have registered sale deeds vide document Nos.2197/1986 and 2199 11986 dated 08.O9.1986 respectively. It is their case that land comprising an extent of Ac. 1 1- 17gts forming part of Sy'No 287 situated at Shankerpally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, originally \ belonged to Ganzrpuram Ramulu and others, who made layout and converted into plots and thereafter executed various sale deeds in favour of prospect.ive purchasers. It is further case of t.he petitioners that a notihcation has been issued by the respondr:nt No-2 for acquir-ing an extent of Ac.22l.OO gts for the purpose of establishment of Metro Naptha Based Power Station. The responclent No.2 has issued land acquisitron proct:edings vide El/5722/ 1995 dated

25.08.I995 and issued notification dated 14.02.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Acl, 1894 in the name of original owner Ganapuram Ramulu and others. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in A.P.Gazette in R.R.No.31 dated 3O. 12.7996 and the petitioners participated in the said land acquisitron proceedir-rgs, as their names were shown as interested persons, after receipt of notice issued under Section 9 of the Act dated 03.04.1997 It is stated that after following the procedure, the respondent No.2 determined the compensation payable vide Award dated 16.12.2OOO vide File No.B/ I 181/ 1995. As there were several claims over the property under acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) referred the dispute under Section 30 of the Act for a pportionment of compensation and tl-re same was registered vicle O.P.No.45l2OOl and pending for adjuclication. It is stated that in sccond week of March, 2008, the petil.ioners have submitted representations to the respondents and also issued legal I notice dated 1 1.08.2008 requesting to re-assign the land acquired as the same was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. [t is their case that the subject land was acquired for the purpose of Metro Naptha Based Power Station in the larger public interest but in view of faih-rre to establish Metro Naptha Based Power Station, the question of public purpose does not survive and the Government is not having any right to utilize the acquired land for any other purpose and the same has to be reverted back to the petitioners.

4. The respondent No.6 has filed counter affidavit inter aLia stating that on the requisition made by the erstwhile APSEB to setup 1400 MW Gas Based Thermal Power Station at Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District, the State Government has acquired the land admeasuring Ac-226.06 of private land in various survey numbers, in addition to the extent of Ac.9 1 . 15 gts of Government land. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure under the provisions of the Act, has passed an award No.B/I181/1995 dated l6.12.2OOO and deposited the compensation amount. lt is further slated that after bifurcation of erstwhile APSEB into APGENCO and APTRANSCO and four other distribution companies, the possession of the land was handed over to APGENCO but due to non-availability of basic inputs of water and fuel at Shankarpally and other circumstances, the setting up of project as -1 '1 desired by APSEB has become difficult at the proposed location and the APGENCO dropped the proposal and decrded to set up the project in some other place lt is also stated that the names of petitioners were not entered in rcvenue records and their names were also not found in the records retating 1o acquisition proceedings lt is their contention that APGENCO l-ras been in possessiot-t of thc said Iand and the compensation amount was already deposited lt is further stated once the land was acquired by paying compensation, the same will be vested with the Requisition Department through the State and the rights of the tand owners become divested and they cease to be owners and thereforc, they are not entitled for restitution of possession of land acquired on the ground that the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. It is flrrther stated that APTRANSCO has requested the APGENCO an extent of Ac'75 0O gts of land ortt of Ac.226.06 gts for the purpose of constructing 400 KV sub-station at Shankarpally and APGENCO has accepted to surrender 63 acres of tand out of total land available rvith APGENCO vide letter No.MD/CE/C/GS/SE/C &| I AEE IT ITl /F/Shankarpallv/ D.No.21/08 dated 11.O1-2008. It is further stated that APrRANSCO is part and parcel of APStrB and therefore, surrendering part of the land by APGENCO to APTRANSCO for the purpose of constructing 400 KV sub-station cannot be said as illegal and contran' to rules and ultimately, prayed for dismissal of writ petition t )

5. The respondent No.5 also filed counter affidavit on similar line s as that of counter affidavit liled by the respondent No.6.

6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and pemsed the record. 7'. It is stated that patta land admeasuring Ac.226.06 gts in various survey numbers at Shankarpally Village and Mandal, and Government Land admeasuring Ac.91 . 15 gts, situated at Shankarpally Village and Mandal, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Metro Naptha Based Power Station by the erstwhile APSEB. The {and acquisition proceedings were initiated vide No.Et /5722195 dated 25.08.1995 and notification under Seclion 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 14.02.1996 and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in AP Gazette R.R.No.31 dated 30.12- 1996. It is stated that the petitioners and others participated in the acquisition proceedings and the claims of the petitioners were also considered while issuing notice under Section 9(1) of the Act dated 03.O4.L997 - It is stated that thereafter an award was passed in Proc.No.B/ 1181/95 dated 16.12.2OOO. In view of the serious disputes, the compensation determined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, was deposited before the Civil Court under Section 3O of the Act for apportionment of the same. The case of the t) petitioners is that their lands acquired for the purpose of construction of Metro Naptha Based Power Station have not been utilized and therefore, they are entitled for re conveyance of the same.Ontheotherhand,itisthecaseo[therespondentsthatafter bifurcation of the erstwhite APStrB into APGENCO, APTRANSCO, and four. other distribution companies, possession of the land was handed over to APGtrNCO. Due to the lack of basic resources such as water and fuel at Shankarpally, along with other circumstances, the proposed project by APSEB could not be established at Lhat location. Consequently, APGENCO dropped the proposal and decided to relocate the project. It is further case of the respondents that once land is acquired and compensation paid, ownership vests with the Requisition Department through the State, and the original owners rights are divested, making them ineligible for restitution of possession on the grounds that the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. It is further case of the respondents that APTRANSCO requested APGENCO to transfer 75 Acres of land . from Ac.226.O6 gts for construction of 400 KV substation at Shankarpally and the APGENCO agreed to surrender Ac.63.OO gts of land vide letter No.MD /CtrlClGS/SE/C &'1 / AF)E II lTl /F/shankarpa-11y/D.No 21l08 dated 11 O1 2008 It is also case of the respondents that since APTRANSCO is parL and parcel of ,. f 1 APSEB, APGENCO's transfer of land for the constmction of the sr-rb- station cannot be stated as violation of purpose of acquisition

8. ln Northern Indio,n Gtass fndastries us. Jasuo,nt Singh & othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in the event, the land was not used for thc purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that do not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land. Paras 1O and I 1 of the said decision, reads as follows: ''1O. In Chandragauda Rarngonda Pati[ us. Slate of Maharashtra ft1996) 6 SCC 4O5l ir i-s -slated that th<: acquired land remaining unutilized utas not tntencled l(, be rcstilut('d to tle erstLuhiLe owner to uhom adeQuate compensalion uas poicl uccording lo Lhe morket value as on the date oJ notlficatio n.

11. Yet again in C.Podma Vs. Dg Secy. To the Gout. of T N. (1997) 2 SCC 624, it is held thet ucquired land hauing uested in the State and the compensation hauing been paid to the claimant, fLe uas not entitled to restttutiotl orfposse-s.sion on ttle ground that either origtnal public purpose had ceased to be in operation or lhe land could not be used for other purpose

9. Thus it is clear from the above judgment that the land acquired, vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances; the land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for any other public purpose; and the acquired land which is t ' (2003) 1 scc 33s I t i 8 vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be re assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners ln these writ petitions have not made out any case for granting rtrlief as sought for. These batch of writ petitions filed by the petitioners art: devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. 1 1. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if :Lny, shall stand closed. No order as to costs Date: 11.O9.2024 sus/scs C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J {