The High Court · 2025

ORDER ...,:..: ; .- :--.., '-'''r".'. - r.ir t)i i .9 $\cs *\ (- (, .,/ WP.No.24(t79 ot 20 iii)lti ,+ 1i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (' HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA PETIT ON No.1 245 0F oa2 PETI oN No. 294 ot or.2 2 7of ITI No. AND o 6 t2 WR w WRIT RIT COMMON ORDER Heard learned senior designate counsel Sri B' Chandrasen Reddy, representing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and learned standing counsel Mr. L. Prabhakar Reddy appearing on behalf of TSIIC Respondent No.4 and learned counsel Mr. P. Ravicharan, Link Legal Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.8, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos'1 to 3 and 7'

2. The oetitioner aooroached the court in W'P'No' No. L245 2lJL2 kin orave as un er: "to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the registration of lease and conveyance deeds bearing document no.2056O/2005 and 20562/2005 both dated 28-12-2OO5'on the file of the seventh respondent, by declaring the action of the respondents no' 4, 5 and 6 of the diversification of the acquired land in survey no' 48 4 oF llanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Re(id), district, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiorral and witro.rt jurisdiction; and be pleased to pass suclr other order,'s as this Hon'ble court may deem fit anC prr)per in the circumstances of the case.,,

3. Thr urt i w.P. No.1294 of 2012s kino raver as under: "to issue a writ or order/s more particularly orre in the natrrr€ of Writ of Mandamus setting ;::rid,,: the registration of lease and conveyance deeds bearing docrrr'ent no. 20560/2006 and 20562/2006 bcth dated 28-12-2OO5 on the file of the seventh respcndert, by declarir3 the action of the respondents no, 4, 5 arrd 6 of the d ir,,e rsification of the acquired land in surv,ey rro. 49 of Nana <ramguda village, Serilingampalli manda l, :langa Red jy district, as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutir) nil l and without jurisdiction; and be pleased to pass su:h other order/s; rs this hon'ble court may deem fit and p,r6 3sr 1n the (:ir(:L mstances of the case.,,

4. The Deti tioners aDDroa ched the court in W. lP.No. No.6577 r 01 seeki (I orav rasun er: "a) cleclarring that the diversification of the severecl land in suryey no.49 of Nanakramguda viJlage, Seril ngampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district firllirg to the r:ast of the outer ring road in favour of ttre sixth resp{)ndent as being illegal, arbitrary, uncons;titur.ional and without jurisdiction, by holding that the s;rid land stancls 'e,verted to the petitioner. 5 b) setting aside the award dated 30-11-2005 in file no' ilzqVzioo on the flle of the third respondent, by aeteting the severed land in Survey No'49 of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy distiict to the eastern side of the outer ring road, and'[o re-conduct award enquiry, and to pass award afresh, and affording an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard." The oetitioner aD oroach ed the court n W.P No. 5 No. 6501 of 2oL2 eekin Draverasu nder: "u"tt "(a) declaring that the diversification of the severed land - no.48 of Nanakramguda village, in survey Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district falling to oi the outer ring road in favour of the sixth iespondent as being illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutiona I ani without jurisdiclion, by holding that the said land stands reverted to the petitioner' (b) setting aside the award dated 30-11-2005 in file no' i/zcslzo:oo on the file of the third respondent, by already alGtirg the area of 1 acre 3 guntas which pi; of the award bearing no'O4/2OO6 in file lo.Wunit.VloRR/08/2006 dated 27-5-2006, and the severed land falling to the eastern side of the outer ring road, and to re-conduct award enquiry, and to pass u*ula uft"tf, after deducting the said extent' and ufforJing an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. " -is PERUSED THE RECORD : 6 h t P r n n w. .No. 2451 r 20L2 and w.P. o.65O Ll20 2 in brief as h e 6 Petitioner 1n suoD rt of the s id tw (02 writ oetiti ns is as undel : i. Th: Writ petitioner i.€., A.L.Sadanar de,m in W. P. No. : 24!;/2012 who is also writ petit or,er in W.P.No,(,5Ct1/2OI2 is the owner of land admeasuring At:.14.25 gts., in Sy.lJo.48 of Nanakramguda Village, Seriling;rmpally Mandal, RanEa Reddy District, which had been nc tif ed for acquisiticn l'or public purpose i.e., for developrip:7 into integrate i , ojects by invoking the provisions of :ht,, Land Acquisition ,\:t, Section a(1) of the Land Acquisitic,n A,:t was Gazetted or L7 .O7.2002 and Draft Declaration unde - S;ection 6(1) of the l..and Acquisition Act was Gazetted on tB.)7 2002, invoking t-he rrgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under Ser tic'n 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The sirme was questione,i hy the petitioner in W.p.No.19560 of 2002 a.d this Court by r,rdr: - dated 04.LL2OO4 set aside the urgency r:lause while sustair:ing the Section 4(1) Notification and dire,ct,,:d for conduct of liiection 5-A enquiry. Even though Section 5_A enquiry was held the same was without any notic€ t) the Petitioner without there being any valid enquiry ;rrrd draft declaratior unrJer Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Acl: was 7 published on 27.O4.ZOO5 and the same was questioned by the Petitioner by filing W.P.No.11619 of 2O05 and the same was dismissed by the Court on 25.10.2005 and the matter landed before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No.2902 of

2006. The said SLP along with connected Appeals preferred by other private land holders of the adjoining lands was heard and disposed of Vide common iudoment rendered bv the Supreme Court on O5.o9,2OOg which was reDorted in (2OO8) 9 SCC 552. But when the very purpose of acquisition proceedings which was intended initially for establishing and developing infrastructure project was not proceeded with in respect of the Petitioner's subject land, petitioner made an application dated 24.11.2008 before the Government to denotify the land from acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act but when there was no response to the said application' of the petitioner, petitioner filed W.P.No.267B7 of 2008 and the same was disposed of by the order dated 06.04.2009 directing the Government to consider and dispose of P€titioner's representation dated 24'11.2008 within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Petitioner filed an application dated 06.O5.2009 before the Government enclosing the copy of the order dated 8

06.04.2C09 passed in W.P.No.26787 of 2008 arrd the Petitione- al:;o gave an application to the Chief lV ni:,;ter on 13.11.2010. when a third party was trying to make construcl ior in the Petitioner's subject land, petitir>nr.:r filed W.P.No.33229 of 2011 and sought a direction to t:he 1't Respondr:nt to de-notify land admeasuring Ac.9 00 in Sy.No.48 ol' Nanakramguda Village lying on easter.r r;ide of the expr:sr: Highway Road leading to the outer r.in,,; road because tf t re severance or in the alternative direr:t :he 1st Responde,nt to consider and dispose off the applicatior f iled by the Petiticnr:- in accordance to the order dated Cr6.0.{.2009 passed irr W.P.No.267B7 of 2008. Th: W.P.No.3 )2 )-,)/2oll was disposed of at the admissicn stage directing th,,: 1't Respondent to conslder petiIoner,s applicatiol rr accordance with the order dated06.04..2009 passed in Vtrr.P.No.26787 of 2008 within a period of :wc (02) months. ii. It is fjJrther the case of the Petitioner that whe r I he 6th Respondert '^,as digging Petitioner's land, petitioner lilel Suit in O.S,No 876i of 2011 on the file of 1't Addl. District _tudge, Ranga R.edd'7 District at L.B.Nagar and sought for irrterim I injunction order in I.A.No.2723 of 2011 and onlv throuoh the documents filed bv the 6s Resoondent before the the nowledse ofthePetitio er thata Cou rt it me hich adb n and in Sv.N .48 DA ofP io er's I t t o n f n n

24.L2.2 5 tra nSfer tn favour of the5E Respondent. Registered It is further the case of the Petitioner that the 4th iii) Respondent had executed a Registered Sale Deed and also Deeds of Conveyance on 28'12'2005 vide Nos.20560/2005 and 20562/2005, but the Docu ment registration of both the documents had been done only on 12.10.2006. When the Petitioner came to know that Petitioner's acquired land was sought to be diversified by the beneficiary of the acquisition i'e', the 5th Respondent in favour of the 6th Respondent by executing a Lease Deed dated 21.01.2010 on a mere stamp duty of Rs'100/- and without any registration, the Petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.1245 of 2Ol2 seeking a writ of mandamus setting aside the registration of lease and conveyance deeds bearing Doc.No.20560 /2O06 and 20562/200O both dated 28'12'2OOs 10 on the fil-" c,f the 7th Respondent by declaring the act or of the Respondt:ntr; No.4, 5 and 6 of the d iversificatio rr cf the acquired l;rnd in Sy.No.4g of Nanakramgud,a \,,illage, Serilingarnpa ly Mandar, Ranga Reddy District. It is rurt er the specific c,tsr: of the petitioner that no notice was givr:n to the Petitioner prior to passing of the Award and the t,et tioner came to (nc,rv about the passing of the Award in rersF,ect of Petitioner s ltrbject lands only when the matter was referred to the Civit lourt in O.p.No.969 of 2OlO which is trresently pendinq c n tlre file of II Addl. District Judge, Rang: ;leddy District at L.t:i. Nagar. iv) The pr:titioner A.L.Sadanandam in W.p.No.12,15,,,2012 also filed \V.f .No.6501 of 2OL2 declaring the diversif,icat on oF severed anl in Sy.No.4g of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingam ra lly, Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, fallirrg to the east of the or.rter ring road in favour of the 6th Respc,ndert as illegal and to ;et aside the Award dated 30.11.2005 irr File No.B/245/2,O0C on the file of the 3.d Respondent, by clelr:ting the area of One acre three guntas which is already par: ot the Award bearinc No.0412006 in File No.LAlUnit.V/ORR/08/.;1006 dated 27.Oij.2C06 and the severed land falling to the oas;tern 11 side of the outer,ring road and to re-C0nduit Award enquiry and to pass Award afresh after deducting the said extent and affording an opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard.

7. The case of the Petitioners in W.P.No.129412Ot2 as per the averments made by the Petitioners in support of the piesent Writ Petition is as under : i) Petitioners are agriculturists owning land in Sy.No.49 admeasuring Ac.7.36 gts., situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District being co- percenary propeaty of Petitioners and they had been cultivating the land, and agriculture had been the only source of their livelihood. The Petitioner's subject land had been notified for acquisition by the APIIC on the ground of public purpose for setting up of new projects and notification U/s.a(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was gazetted on t7.O7.2OO2 followed by Sec.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was gazetted on 18.07.2002 by invoking the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry U/s.s-A of the Land Acquisition Act, Pbtitioners questioned the said proceedings but by retaining Sec.4(1) Notification urgency clause was struck down by thb Court directing Sec. 5-A enquiry. The said I2 enquiry l\ra:i colourable and again a Notification under 6(i) of Land Acquisition Act was published on 27.O4.2r)0:;. The Petitione -s however did not hear anything about ;rn Award Enquirv or :r,assing of an Order. The Petitioners had ncrt been paid any corrpensation and no Notice had been issued to the Petitionels tc deliver possession of the acquired lanrl. ii) It ir; fr.rrther the case of the petitioners that assailing the fresh Nolifir.ertion U/s.6(i) of the Land Acquisition A:t, which was issued x 27.O4.2O05, the Petitioners had filerj Writ Petition befcre this Court and the same was dismissel against which Pe.itio"rers preferred SLp (C) No.2239 of 20C6 before the Suprr:m: Court. The said Appeal was heard ,al:nq with other siriiar cases filed questioning the very same Notificatic n ernd after hearing of the parties the Su,:reme Court haC dismissed all the Civil Appeals and :hc: said Judgment was reported in 2008 (9) SCC 532. On 02 01 .2012 the Petit oners had filed an application before tl,e 1't Respondert to withdraw the above said land from acquisition and to iss re er Notification to that effect U/s.48( 1) of :he Land Acquisition h<:t and the 6th Respondent tried to enr:roach a 13 portion of the Pqtitioners land by constructing a compound wall. iii) It is furtherl the case of the Petitioners that though the Petitioners initially filed a suit in O.S.No.9/2012 on the file of Ist Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and sought for interim injunction order, subsequently, however on 18.O1.2012 Petitioners filed a Memo seeking to withdraw suit O.S.No.9l2jl2 on the file of Ist Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. It is only when the 6th Respondent appeared and filed a Counter on 03.o1.2012 in Suit o.S.No.B7Bl2011 filed by the owner, A.L. Sadanandam, pertaining to land in Sy.No.7B of Nanakramguda Village who had been similarly effected and who had sought for interim orders in 1.A.No.2723/2011 it came to light for the first time that Petitioners land is being diversified as it is no more required for the public purpose originally notified for the sake of 5th Respondent. (iv) It is further the case of the iPetitioners that a Registered Lease Deed bedring Document 'No.20560/2006 and a Registered Conleyance Deed bearing Document L4 No.2056jtl2006 are said to have been executed by l:he 4th Respondent i.e., APIIC Corporation in favour of t,re 5th Respondr,nt on 28.12.2005 and the same had been prresented for registration on 12.10.2006. The said documents are very vague in so far as Petitioners lands are concerned as it is not stated wi:h any precision as to how much area is cove"ed by the lease dr:r:d and how much under the conveyance deed. U/s.23 of th,-. Indian Registration Act, 1908 any documr,rnt for registration ;hall be presented within 4 monthr; cf its execution bU t in the instant case it was after 10 mon :hs; of its execution ar ri even as per Sec.25 of the Indian Rec isl ration Act, concon,lrion could be only for a further period of 4 months ir, acdition to the original period of 4 mor th s and hence th:re I is no jurisdiction to register the e foresaid document; b:yond 28.08.2006. (v) It i:i_.f urther the s cific caseoft he Petit toners tE!-]lIilEId acquired for a spec .ld_EC utilized for._the said purpose onlv and it ca n[e!_be dive sifiedi nre Dect of anv other DurDo . [n viewof the fact that orioinaI oublic ourDose r whi ch. the Peti oners subi land ad bee notified havi n o n 15 .l r ifi ditis , a.ititarrAaal ]rv +ha DAi# naFG f hat th Petitioners are entitled for the relief as Draved for in the Dresent writ Detition. Hence W.P.No.1294 I 2()12 had been filed by the Petitioners there under.

8. The very same petitioners in W.P.No.1294 of 2(,7'2 filed W.P.No.6577 ol 2O12 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the diversification of severed land in Sy.No.49 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, falling to the east of the outer ring road in favour of the 6th Respondent as illegal and to set aside the Award dated 30.11.2005 in File No.B/245/2000 on the file of the 3'd Respondent, by deleting the severed land in Sy.No.49 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the eastern side of the outer ring road and to re-conduct Award enquiry and to pass Award afresh after deducting the said extent and affording an opportunity to the Petitioners on being heard. 9 The Counter affidavit has been filed the sDecial DeouW Collector, Land Acouisition, Industries. Hvderabad, present Industries/I.A.P., Ranoa Reddv 16 in W.P.No. L245 of 20 12 and the rerlevant District, oarao raph.pQ,realg unglgg : Para I : It is further submitted that re gardirrg issu ing of rotif ication U/s 4(1) and declaration U/s 6 cF tie Act, anri a bout the Court cases, has already beerr dis;cussed in :brlve paras. The petitioner herein shoulc ra,,re filed an,r claim and objection before the L.A.O. at tlre ':ime of pul)lication of notification and declaration anJ irlso at the time of award enquiry but as seen from the award no sur:lr claim was filed before the then L.A.O.'Ih;,rt after pa:;sirgt the award on 30-11-2005 in the S.L P. (Civil) No 29(.):l of 2006 the status quo orders state(l tl) have becn issued on 10-2-2006, in respect of posser;si,:n, but the posrsession of the land was already taken befr:re the above late. That the Civil Appeal No.5512 o[ 20()8 and batch s,tated to were disposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Clorrrt rvhich was reported in 2008(9)SCC 552. ttut the petitior er herein has not mentioned about ttre orders passed in these cases. That the Hon'ble Suprene Court disrnissed the cases as "The action of the state in init at ng acquisition proceedings for establis rir,g and del elr:pring infrastructure project cannot be held contrary' to law or objectionable. The High C()urt was, the -ef ore, right in dismissing the writ petitions ar d also wril i:ppeals and we find no infirmity the-el,r and the-efo'e all the appeals are liable to be disrrissed and are ac,:,:rdingly dismissed". 17 It is respectfully' submitted that the Para 11 : petitioner herein stated that he has filed an application before the Government on 24-LL-2OOB to de-notify the land from acquisition under section 48(1) of the L'A'Act, but there was no response from the Government he filed W.P.No.26787 of 2008 before this Hon'ble Court, and the same was disposed on 6-4-2009 while directing the Government to consider and dispose off his representatiOn dated: 24-11-2008 within a period of four weeks for the date of receipt of the said order' The petitioner stated that he has filed petition on 6-5-2009 and also on 13-11-2010 before the Hon'ble Chief Minister. In this regard it is submitted that once the possession of the lands acquired has been taken over by the Government, there is no provision to de-notify the land. The section 48 of the L'A' Act, speaks that "(1)Except in the case provided for in section 36' the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken". landsh vealreadv been taken overas uch he Governm nt reouested bv him. de-n otifv Para L2: It is further submitted iirat in respect of the subject land the same is attracted by the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, !976, as such it was referred to the Civil Court U/s 30 of the L'A' Act and compensation was deposited before the Court U/s 18 30 & 31 oF the Act, and said case was nufirbered as O.t,,No.969/2010, and is pending before th,,: IInd Adrlitirrnal District Judge, Ranga Reddy Dir;tr ct, as adrnitk:d by the petitioner herein in these p,rres. The petitlorrer is at liberty to file relevant documer ts before the above Civil Court and claim the compensati,:n. As the petitioner has not filed any claim petition ,rt tl,e time of aw;r rd enquiry. The petitioner is at liberty to file pet tio n before this respondent and obtain tlre certified copy of the Award. That the contention of the t)e tioner thal h,-. is unaware of the award, but as ev d:nt. from the avr:r-ments made in these paras the petition:r is well awa re c)f the passing the award, referring the rra i.ter to Civi C:urt and O.p. number and also the que ntr.rm of compensation amount to Rs.73.00 lakhs.

10. The tn w.P .N o.1245 Sta I u a t2 oL2, APIIC. I Inf s resentlv Telanq ana r or;t B sh h d a 6 L2, 3an Para piec€ east€ d_1_S-_tead_a s&!!owS : 6: It is submitted that the allegation :here is -ation of public purpose in view of the align xent of ' rirrg road resulting split of Sy No. 48 intc two s :nd Ac 9-00 out of Sy.no.48 fallinq to the rn s;ide of the road leaving small extent of lc. 1-00 19 in compact'block etc., are totally vaguer incorrect and untenable and unsustainable. acq uisition IS for one tr d a n r n h f d a h h a da er v n h r the DU TD se of filinq this Writ Petitaon. Once the r w a v t h L u v m A n b! a fou n fault bv the writ oetitioner. u ca not It is submitted that the allegation that fraud Par 13 played by the respondents to deprive the has been petitioner fnrm making the payment of compensation and facilitating unjust enrichment etc', under the guise of acquisition of more than Ac' 500-00 of land' CBI investigation and prosecution of officials which are incorrect and the same is concerned to the other respondents and the petitioner is called upon to put to strict proof of the same. 15 It is submitted that the acquisition of the Par lands by 4th respondent Corporation is not with any malafide purpose. As per the policy of the Government 20 anrl rr the interest of development of ird.tstries, prcjerts, tourism in the State for development of intr:grated projects, gulf courts, townships, hotels, under pri,/atrl pa rtnersh ip/joint venture it has L,ecome inerit,,rble for acquiring surrounding lands of lJvderabad. As a I'natter of fact, the development works havi: been taken up in the lands and various activities h; ve taken plar:e including Convention Centre, Busines:; .iotels, Tov/ns:hip Projects, Gulf Course etc. Thus the a,:qr.tisition of the lands are in the larger interest of public arrd also as por the policy of the Government. Thus the acqrisition of the lands cannot be found fault hy the petition-.rs, though the same are compulsory irt rature. Alreadrz when the land acquisition for public prtrpose is uph:ld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He ce, the pres en'- writ petition is not maintainable. t fit

11. Tie co w.P. No.1 29"a or ZOrZ, npttC, o Industria Hvd raban.- 9. L4, 16, rea d as follows: II nfrastr ucture Corooratio ResDo ndent a Slate Bas h eer oh- N.os,4. Para 4: It is submitted that the writ petition as filed by ti e rr:titioners to set aside Registration of L.e lsr,r and Conveyarce Deeds bearing document No. ll(5€,0 of 2006 ard 20562 of 2006 both dated 2B-t2-2005 arrd for declaratir:n of diversification of the acquired larrd in 2L Sy.o.49 of Nanakramguda village, Sherilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy district is not maintainable in law' E-E_g: It. is submitted that in pursuance of the requisition of the then APIIC, proposals were initiated for acquisition of Ac. 541-00 in a compact block by the revenue authorities and initiated proceedings of acquisition and the award has been made in respect of Ac.77-OZ Gts. of patta land under Land Acquisition Act' It is submitted that Government of Andhra Pradesh granted exemption from payment of stamp duty and registration for conveyance deeds and lease deeds' payment of transfer duty and therealter respondent No' 4 herein executed Registered Deed of conveyance and lease deeds in favour of Respondent Nos' 7 and 8' Therefore, the allegation that the documents were executed without exemption of stamp duty and registration and powers to exempt the same will not stand to the'legal scrutiny etc', are totally untenable' As per the policy of the Government the said documents were executed by respondent No' 4 as stated supra' which is in Public interest. It is submitted that a policy decision was Para L4 the Government to develop the State by taken bY providing physical and social infrastructure by attracting and facilitating private investment in infrastructure' As per the said policy decision the Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure Development Enabling Act, 2001 (Act 36 22 of 2001) has been enacted. The main object cf the said Ac , s to provide rapid development of phl,sir:al and sor:ial infrastructure in the State and attra(:t private se< to- tarticipation in designing, financing. corstl uction, operal.ion and maintenance of infrastructure pr ojects. The Cicvernment also prepared a document a:; early as in thtr year 1990 called ,,Vision - 2000 d ccr.rment,, higrlir:hting need for Tourism as an importEnt factor anc initiated constructive development of proj,rcts from the y€3r 2000-2001. it is submitted that the acquisition of the Para fQ: lan<is by 4th respondent Corporation is not ,vil h any malafiCe purpose. As per the policy of the Goverlment and i-r the interest of development of indu stries, projec,_s, tourism in the State for develcprrernt of inteSr;rted projects, gulf courts, townships, hote ls under priv lt€ pa rtnership/joint venture it has br.rcome inevitatr e for acquiring surround Iands of Hyder,rb;rd. As a rr at1.er of fact, the development works ha re been taken r. p and various developed projects have r:orrre up includinc Convention Centre, Business Hotels, T:rwnship Project,;, Gulf Course etc. Thus the acquisitiorr of the landr; are in the larger interest of people and als r ers per the tolicy of the Government. Thus the acqui:;ition of the rar,ds cannot be found fault by the petitioners, thourlh :'he same are compulsory in nature. 23

12. c Boutder Hill Leisur Privat Limit R Donde t i.e. ls. in W.P .No.129 4ol L2 15 Nos. 27 re 25a "14. It is ifurther submitted that in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding and Collaboration Agreement,' the then APIIC transferred land admeasurin$ 258.36 acres comprised in Sy' Nos' 210(P) & 211(P) of iManikonda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Sy. No. 91(P) of Gachibowli Village, Serillingampally Mandal, Sy.rNos. 4 to 26(P), 27 (4) to 35(P), 37,38, 40, 4!, 43 to 46(P) 47, 4B(P) and 49(P) of Nanakramguda, Serilingampally Mandal to EHTPL i'e' Respondent' No. 9 vide Registered Conveyance Deed dated 28.12'.2005. It is further submitted that similarly the then APIIC has also leased land admeasuring 235 acres situated in survey numbers 210(P) 211 (P) of Manikonda lvillage, 91(P) of Gachibowli village and ,r.u"y nr.6"rs 6 to 11, 19 to 24 (P), 37, 38, 40, 4L, a7 b agQj of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal to EHLPL i.e. Respondent No'8 herein vide Registered Lease Deed dated 28.12'2005' The copy of the Lease Deed dated 28.72.2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure No' 5. I

15. The Answering Respondent submits that, APIIC has handed over the physical possession of the lands admeasuring 531.98 acres in (Sy No'203(P), 210 (P) & 211(P) of Manikonda (V), Rajendranagar (M), Sy' No' 24 9t/P cf Gachibowli Village and Sy. No. 36,31,38, 39, 40 12 and 47 of Nanakramguda (V), Serilirrgampally (Mr, ::;y No. 4 to 26,27/4 to 35, 43 to 46,48 an,J 49 of Na rakramguda (V), Serilingampally (M) Ran 3a Reddy Distri,:t to EHTPL and BHLpL i.e Respondent \o B vide pos;se:;sion certificate dated 18.06.20()5 and 29.17 t>.O05. The copies of possession certificates; dated 18.06,i1005 and 29.IL.2005 are annexed he.ewith as Anne> ure No.6(Colly). Since then, the EHTPL a 1d the Ans wcrring Respondent have been in th e lawful posse:,sion of lands and the said factum is well knr:wn to the pu blic at large and is within the public dom;rin

19. Ttre Answering Respondent submits that th: c,riginal lantiov;ners had approached the Hon'ble Suprerne Court of India by way of various Special Leave petil ions vtz. SLP ((:) No. 1135 of 2006, SLp (C) No. 2239 of 2006, SLP (( ) No. 3387 of 2006, SLp (C) No. 3388 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 3389 of 2006, SLp (C) No. 3390 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 2902 of 2006, which were hearrj toctether and tl-e Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its :ornmon judgment dated 05.09.2008, has dismissed r:he said petit ions and upheld the acquisition of lands in c uestion. The wrlt petitioners having admitted about the filing of Spe< ial l.eave Petitions have cleverly stated th,at w rat is beln,; ;rgitated is a totally different cause of acr:iorr and filed t-rr: present petition giving it the r:c lor rr of diversification which is nothing but.abuse of process of 25 law. On this ground alone, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

25. In reply to the averments made in Paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit under reply, Answering Respondent submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 20OB(9) SCC 552 has upheld the action of the State in initiating acquisition proceedings for establishing and developing infrastructure project cannot be held contrary to law or objectionable. The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the writ petitions as also writ appeals and we find no infirmity therein' All the appeals, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The copy of judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No'5512/2008 dated 05.09.2008 is annexed herewith as Annexure No.B. Therefore, it is crystal clear that though being fully aware about the land acquisition proceedings having been initiated during the period of 2OO2-2OOS (including upholding of the acquisition of lands by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as public purpose)' taking over of the possession of lands way back in the year 2005 and passing of award has filed the present petition frivolously with regards to the subject lands' suppressing;the material facts for wrongful gains' Petitioners

27. In reply to the averments made in Para 7 of the affidavit under reply, the Answering Respondent denies 26 a esD oue ron ssronofl nds i r2 e. I thr, s,:.ne as false and the petitioners is pu"_ tr) strict prr,of of the same. The Answ flno n sc.m its that ED a q of the award underth e Land Acou isition Dal Acl;._1894. As mentioned above, the thr:n ApIIC accuired the subject lands and consequently tranr;ferred the s,lme to the Answering Respondent ttrrcugh a Re(ristered Lease Deed dated 28.12.2005 arrd it has alre ,ad y attained finality and has been in puLrli: r;omain sinr e 2'005. It is settled position in law that after passin,l the award, and taking possession unrJe r :,ection 16 :f lhe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the accluireC land ves.s ,vith the Government free from all encun br,ances. Eve r i' ::he land is not used for the purpose of ra,hi,.:h it is acquirerrl, the original land owner/land looser Jotls not hav,: ar,y right to seek for re-vesting the lanrl i-r him and tr: seek for restitution of the possession The presenl writ petition is nothing but an after_thought and an ,rbus:e of process of law in order to deprive the Ansrvering Respondent of its legal and lawfrrl rights accrrecl to it under the said registered lease deecJ over the:;ubir:ct lands.

13. Courrter affidavit fited on behalf of 9th Respondent in W.P.Nc,.1294 of 2OLZ and in particutar, para Nos;. 27, 28t 29, ard 33 reads as under : 27 "27, In resDect of averments made in Para 1 of the affidavit undei reply, it is respectfully submitted that the Petitioners have no locus standi to file present writ petition as the lands in question are the properties of the Answering Respondent which were validly acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh through the then APIICT and conveyed the same to Answering Respondent vide registered conveyance deed dated 28.12.2005. All challenges to the acquisition process have been completed and rejected by the Courts. A second round of litigation on the decided issues is not permissible. 28. In reply to the averments made in Para 2 of the affidavit under reply, the Answering Respondent denies the same as false for want of knowledge. It is submitted that the APIIC has transferred land admeasuring 258.36 acres vide registered conveyance deed dated 28.12.2005 in favour of Answering Respondent and since then the Answering Respondent is in the lawful possession of the said lands. 29. In reply to the averments made in Para 3 of the affidavit under reply, the Answering Respondent submits that the contents of the paragraph under reply in so far being a matter of record needs no reply. The Answering Respondent denies that that the Petitioners have not heard anything about the award enquiry or passing of award and the Petitioners are put to strict proof the same. The Answering Respondent further 2A de ries that that the Petitioners have not beer pirid any cornpilnsation and that no notice was issued fc r rlelivery of po:;:;ession of the acquired land and the F,etitioners ar(, pu: to strict p roof of the same. In fact, a n Award bearino Bl245l2OOO dated 30.12.20 5 was pessed bv Soecial Deoutv Collecto Land Acg.ur=sjtion (Industries .E_.!and ad measu ri nq Ac. 7.36 oun s !n survev number 49 w re aco ua red for the inteorate d oroiect. r

33. In reply to the averments made in Para I of the affrda,z t under reply, the Answering Respondent denies the sarre as false and the Petitioner is put to st:rir t proof of l.he :;ame. The Answering Respondent further submits that it is also a settled principle of law that afterr passing of ,rward, taking of possession and delivery of said land to the beneficiary, the retention of the poss(:ssrion by the P<:t itioner is far from truth and such pos ;e:,sion if anl w,rr'lld tantamount to unlawful. L4. Count-er affidavit has been filed on behalf .efjh r Respondent an W.P. t 20L2 7 n oara No!il1, 13, and 16 read as '.11. it is submitted that Government of ir\ndhra PraJe-.h in their Memo No. 13268/lA/2/96- 1 Rt,:venue (LA) D,ept. dated 04-06-1996 has accorded p()rr'tission to 1.he )istrict Collector to acquire land for A)ilC Ltd. even belongs to small and marginal farm,:rs. The 29 Executive Director (Estate) APIIC Ltd., in his letter No. 27lOA3lLands/APIIC/2OO0 dated 18-11-2000 has filed a requisition before the District Collector, R.R. District to acquire the lands in Sy.Nos. 4 to 35, 4L, 43 to 46,48 and 49 extent of Ac. 92.19 Gts. for development of new projects and requested to invoke urgency clause under LA under LA Act as the above lands are urgently required by the APIIC Ltd. The above proposals were forwarded by the District Collector, R.R. District vide letter No.G1l7180/00 dated 07-12-2000 with an instructions to the Special Deputy Collector, LA (Inds.) Hyderabad to initiate land acquisition proceedings as per LA Act and send DN and DD proposals duly invoking urgency clause under LA Act. Accordingly, LA process were initiated invoking the urgency clause.

13. It is submitted that the allegation against the corporation with regard to the negligence and collusion, failed to safeguard the interest of the State and its subject etc., vague and incorrect' The further allegations are not related to this respondent, and the petitioners are called upon to put to strict proof of the same. The allegation that there is a rank discrimination causing loss to the persons like petitioners and wrongful gain to the 5th respondent is also vague and incorrect. It is submitted that the payment of compensation etc., are totally under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and as per the award of Land Acquisition Officer. It is always open to the aggrieved persons for taking steps for 30 en lancement of compensation under the provis;lons of Larrd r\cquisitlon Act, in the event of d issatis;faction ab,)ut the compensation amount. The -emaining allt:gations are not related to this respondent, .:nd the pel.itieners are called upon to put to strict prool of the sa rn e, 16. r! l2 e said ts su mitted that ool:cv decisi on was bvt e Govern ent to dev loD the St te bv Dr(rvid i nq ohvsical a d social i nfrastructu re bv investm ent in cture. As D r the said Dolicv decisi n the An Pr and facilitatinq oriva rastru lo m En;r bl A Infr o1 A e Th social en.rct pI(ryfde rapid developmen infr"st.r"tu." in th" St"t" "nd "ttrr.t_lrivate sectol participation in desion:no, finarclingr corrstru ton, oDer tion and maintenan (e of iects. The Govern ment . also Dre oared a document as e rlv as in the vear 1990 call ed ''Visi on 2OOO docu ent" hiohliohti nor need for Tourism as an imDortant factor and tn tiated con <frr r.+ Il, rirrlrects fr m fha vea r 2000-2001. astructure D davaln itrarr+ .lf e

15. The Petitioner A.L. Sadanandam filecl reply affidavit in W.P.No.1245 of 2012, and in particular, para Nos. 22l 24,. 26t 27, and 28 read as under : 31 "22. It is submitted that fraud has been played by the Respondents to deprive the petitioner and his family members of due compensation while facilitating unjust enrichment of the respondents' Under the guise of acquisition, more than 500 acres of government land which is worth thousands of crores of rupees have been allotted for a farthing in favour of the fifth respondent, and the share of the fourth respondent which was originally 260/o is now reduced to 5olo. Even a modest estimate by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of the wrongful loss to the fourth respondent caused by the agents of the fifth respondent is to the tune of Rs 108 crores, while thousands of crores of rupees have been pocketed by the said persons by selling the plots at the market value which is now not less than Rs 2,50,000/- per sq, yard. Even according to the CBI, the fifth respondent and its agents have sold the plots several times beyond the official price, and even the official price @ Rs 5,000/- per sq. yard comes to Rs 2'5 crores per acre while the price of only Rs 5 lakhs per acre is being offered to the petitioner' The CBI has prosecuted the officials and the private individuals in connection with the Emaar Properties, and the prosecution ris pending in the CBI court at Hyderabad' While for a total land of 10 acr:es 25 guhtas I am being offered Rs r54 lakhs towards market price, the fifth respondent is fetching the same price for a mere extent of 200 sq. yards. There cannot be any greater fraud than this, and this itself is sufficient to nullify all the JZ acc uisir.ion proceedings and the subsequent .rct,;. It is not out of place to mention that at a remote p ace as corrpared to my land in question, the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) has fetchetl {s 14 cro -es ler acre for land in Kokapet village in thr,: open auction conducted by it in the year 2006.

24. It is submitted that Respondent no.4 has pl;lyed a key role in transferring the land to Respondent nos. 5 and 6 and cannot now claim that it is not cr)n(.:erned witl tlre land. It is submitted that respondent no.6 is rely ng on lease deed dated 2l/0I/2010 exe(ruted by resF,onCent no.5. Respondent no.5 is in turn rt:lyrng on the reqistered lease deed and deeds of convel,ance on 28/'-.2i2005 vide document nos. 20560/2.OO5 and 2O5:)2/2OO5 which was executed by Respondent no.4. It is :;u Lr rn itted registration for dr:er:s of nos. 20560/200!; and conVey,tnce 20562i2005 dated 28/t2/2005 executed by Respondent no.4 in favour of Respondent no.5 was don-. on 12/70/2.006 which is contrary to section 23pj, the Indian R ct, 1 O8which lstration ti ou la tes that a docu m nt ex cuted has tobeo I e nted for that the document f (:l on. c ment ha w w n nted for . the qistra ron LOmo ths f mt eda eof execution Moreso, under section 25 of the Indian Registrat on Act, 1908 even if the Registrar has to condone thr: ds;6, Dre JJ which has inot: been done in the instant case, the registering authority cannot condone the delay beyond a period of I months. As such, registration of both documents is illegal, void and non-est in law.

26. In reply to para 12 it is submitted that the Petitioner is not aware of the award being passed with respect to his land nor of the contents of the award. The Petitioner has not received any notice to deliver possession, neither has possession been taken from him in accordance with the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 nor has he participated in the award enquiry. Such usurpation of land by the authorities does not amount to dispossession as mandatory provisions of the LA Act, 1894 have not been followed and without following mandatory provisions, no authority can claim valid title or possession.

27. The allegation that the requisitioning department is not concerned with any allotment or development in respect to matters concerned with other departments is untenable especially when Respondent no.4 has played a key role in transferring the land to Respondent nos.5 and 6. It is pertinent to mention that the government throughout the proceedings has stated that smaller extents of private lands were notified for developing integrated projects consisting of Emaar Hills Township Pvt Ltd even though larger extents of government lands were available to maintain a compact block. Ulfen tlg 34 land of th oetitioner is cl imed to be aco ined for DUTDOSe of develooino an inteqrated townshio an d the urDose of a inteorated township is as thr: land in survev number 48 has been solit into two after the ORR has been laid the land use ow be div rsified for an altoqether caltnot different D constructin o an elegtljciw substation. ose i.e., for

28. Hcwever, pending the above Wp when H,M.D.A. prcpo:;r:d to lay a 30 m wide road as per the -evised road clevelopment plan from ORR service r(.)ad to Kh:rjaq tda lake via Urdu University through the petitiorer's property approximately admeasuri rg Ac. 9. 14 gu rtas gts in sy. no. 48 situated at Nanak rarrguda village, S herilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Cristrict, which is the subject matter of the present writ p{.)tition. The pr:l.itioner filed objection s on 22/07 /2021., ar d was conrpelled to file writ petition L7 268 of 2021 challr-'nging the prooosed road. Pending the said writ petitir;n HMDA offir:ials have approached the petitioners and both have entr-.reC into an understanding by virtue of tlre same, pro':eecing dated 9.11.2021 were issued, w re,..e the HMI)A agreed to acquire an extent of 1680.35 :;q. yards of larrd instead of the earlier proposed extent. Accrrrdingly, the writ petition 17268/20)-l was witl drar,vn as dismissed. Further, the Hon'ble court obsr-,rved that the EMAAR properties are entitled to agitrte the settlement reached between the petrtioner 35 and HMDA officials vide dated 9.LL.zaZt. A copy.of the consent letter and proceedings of the GHMC along with the sketch plan is filed herewith and given by the writ petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was brought to notice that EMAAR properties have filed a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 8L48/2O22 challenging the proceedings and the same is pending. Nevertheless' e Riqht to Fair as oer section 2 4of Land Com ensation and Tra nsDarencv R habi Reset ment 20L the land acouis ition or eedino oets la ssessio of the la d has not been if the ohvsica I taken after oa ssino of ward un er section11 ars or more withi n5v RR rior to 20 m oresent case, the ohvsical and lawful oossession ndent from the official res has not been taken lso the oetitio er has not the oetition r and e Detitioner tion. A Der taken anv mDen the urqencv clause which as set aside in WP Is mt t ino the award a nd award enoui The Iease aoreement executed between the officials and DA AA o h n n no phvsical possession was handed over to them n h h Th pElilldice to the other contentions raised in the writ affidav The o itioner reserves his riq tto file additional reolv if neces ry.

16. Cou ter affidavit filedbvt e BH LPL in W.P.No.1 245 oJ O12 an ln Da icu I Nos. 28, 30 and 31 d as foll s: "28 Tlat the urgency clause was set aside by this Hon'bk-. Court, the Government could nrt take possession of the notified land and it is not knowr, to us (Pet.iticner) as to when the award was passed as there was n(-' notice issued to us (petitioner) to parti :ipate in the aurard enquiry and that till this day petitic,nerr had not ber:n served with any award, is wrong anrl rrenied by the a nswering Respondent. 30. In reply to the averments made in para ,) of the affidavit that till today petitioner is not awarr: r.,f the content of the award as it has not been servr_.d upon Petitioner and Petitioner have not been paicl the comDersation and a paltry compensation was itw:rrded and odd is in the court deposit and petitioner ha s not receiverl any notice of delivery possession an,l no possession has been taken over from petitirni:r in accordance with the provisions of the L.A. lict the answering Respondent denies the same as fal;e, The answerilg Respondent further subrnits th rt the petition(l-s on one hand contend that they do not <now as to \ /hen award was passed and on the othrlr hand 37 contend that a paltry compensation was awarded and is in court deposit. From the above, it is crystal clear that the Petitioner is fully aware that an award was passed and that he has made false claim that he is still in possession of the lands In question.'only with a mala-fide intention. It is settled position in law that after passing the award, and taking possession under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not used for the purpose of which it is acquired, the land owner does not have any right to ask for re-vesting the land in him and to ask for restitution of the possession. The answering Respondent further submits that it is also a settled principle of law that after passing of award, taking of possession and delivery of said land to the beneficiary, the retention of the possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession. 31. In reply to the averments made in para 10 of the affidavit the answering Respondent denies the same as false. The answering Respondent further submits that the petitioners claiming to be in possession of the land which have been acquired pursuant to provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is nothing but illegal and unlawful possession. Therefore,-lhere !gg- merllln the contention of the writ oetitioner that under law he contanues to be the leoal owner and possessors'of the land and that the ResDondents have no rioht to interfere with the same- i 38 DISCUSSION A D CONCLUSION: L7. There are three modes of takinq Dossession of the land u nder_the Land Acquisiti isition and oost a_Eouisition): When ion 5A enouirv is dispe nsed with invokin Section 17 of the Land Acouisiti on Act. 18 (a) When the urgency clause is invokecl hy the Land Acquisition Officer under Section L7 of tlhe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no necessity to conduct the enquirl' under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, L894; Possession can be taken under Sections t7(2) and t7(a) of the LA, Act by dispensing with the enquiry to be conducted as per Section 5-A of the LA Act. Sectaon S-A ensures that the principles of natural jilstice are upheld and fair opportunaty is to he given to the land owners to raise their obiections for acquiring their land and the Rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5A with a view to ensure that before any person is deprived of hirs land bv way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decisfion of 39 the State Government and/or its agencies/ instrumenta lities to acquire the partidutar parcel of land. In the present case, though the Land Acquisition Officer had issued notification under Section 4 to acquire the land by invoking urgency clause under Sectaon 17 of the LA Act, the urgency clause was set aside by this High Court in W'P' No' 19560 of 2OO2 and the Court directed the respondents to issue notice for an enquiry under Section 5A of the LA Act. (b) Further, onty when the urgency clause is invoked and it is in subsistence, the possession could be taken bY the Government without conducting enquiry as contemplated under Sectaon 5A of the Act and the award coutd be passed, subsequent to taking possession. In the present case, since the urgency clause has been set aside, the award has to be made under Section 11 of the LA Act on 3O.11.2Oo5 and only after passing of the award, the possession has to be taken under Section 16' OR (c) After the award is made under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, L894, the possession could be taken. 40 1a. The Land Acquisition Officer should follow the due procedure contemplated as per the provisionr; ,lf the Land Acquisition Act, Enquiry has to be conducted for the parties whose tand is to be acquired after isisuing notices to them. The parties objections (if any) have to be recorded and the award may be passed a nd then possession of the land may be taken, The Scheme ,of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to paynlent of compensation is that, the Collector after enquirt/ as per Section 1 L has to make award and when arara rd is made, notice has to be issued under Section 12(2). The Collector must be armed with the amo [nt of compensation payable to interested persons and only when payment is refused or no person is competent to atienate the land or there is any dispute as to tifler, the Collector shall deposit compensation in reference Court. Only after these steps, the Collector shall take possession of the land which shail vest absolutely in the Government free from a encumbrances.

19. It is the specific case of the petitioner,s in the present Writ Fetition that the petitioners are not aware 47 of the Award being passed with respect to Petitioner's land nor the c<inteiits of the Award. The Petitioner's had not received any notice .to deliver the possession nor has the possession been taken from the Petationer's in accordance to the Provisions.of Land Acquasition Act,

1894. Neither the Petitioner's had participated in the Award enquiry nor hid the Petitioner's received the notice as mandated under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 20, Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, reads as under : "24. Lan acouisition orocess under Act No. 1 of 1894 rta in cases. shell bed ee ed to h ave !aosed in ( 1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,-(a)where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; orlb)where an award under said section 11 has been made, thenrsuch proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not I been repealed':(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings, initiated under .the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been mad€ five years or more prior to the 42 comrr,encement of this Act but the physical pos:;ession of the: ;and has not been taken or the compens.ation has not br:,--n paid the said proceedings shall be deerned to have lapsed and the appropriate Government:, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of s uc,r land acqui!;ition afresh in accordance with the pro,/isions of this A ::: Providerd that where an award has bben nrarie and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has rlot been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specifieil in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of tt'e said Land,Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to comt)ensation in acc,:.dance with the provisions of this Act. 2L. A ba re oerusal of the above o vision cl i nd icate s that the Land Acquisition o eed inqs-lepse-lf the ohvsicil oossession of the land has not been.taken afte r pass years or n1 rior to h encem n No.3O of 2013 . The counter a davits filed lle Act bv the Resoondents do not indicate the date when the-.fnotlee had been issued and served uDon the Petitioner informinq the Petit ioner to oarticioa te in the-3lryall enou r rv and when Notice under Sectio n 12(2) had been issued and erved uoon the P.etitio er. ft is the spEs!f& eoftheP t even verm n made at Para No.28 of the reolv a idavit W.P.No.1245 of 2O12, that as on date phvsi I and 43 R n t e n e t n P n n h fu rt I o h n w set aside in W.P. ohvsical No.1 560 on was takenbv 2l,02 the fter no cials from the r n e f no h nw han n a h r n D essro of th Petitioner's ubie land sond te.

22. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal and Others reported in (2o2O) 8 Scc 129 at paragraphs 362 and 366 observed as under : *'362' Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune r.aun';ipaf Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and iff other decisions- in which Pune Municipal -oiporation (supra) has been followed, are also overruled.......

366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case- the award is not made as on 1'1'2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of 44 proceedings. Compensation has to be determineci under the prcvisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2, In case the award has been passed ra,itt.rin the windorru period of five years excluding th: period coverrrd by an interim order of the court, then procee:dings shall continue as provided under. llection 24(L)t'tt) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act ar; it it has not b€,en repealed.

366.3 The word or used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ..rror,, or as "a rd". The deemed lapse of land ac quisition proceedings unde r Section 24(2) ot the 2013 Act takes place ivhere due to inacti on of authorities for five years or more Drror com mence ment of the sa id Act. the DOSS essron of la dha not been a ken nor possessaon has been taken com Densa ron !s no laose. Simila rlv, ha not been D id the ther been taken then there i no la se, d, I w b o 199t1 The expression '.paid,,in the main part of S,3ction 24\:,2) or the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compenr;ation in court. The consequence of non dr:posit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in ca!;e it has lot beren deposited with respect to majority of landhol,lings then all beneficiaries (landowneis) irs on the dati: of notification for land acquisitior r.rnder Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisionl; of the 2013 Ar1. In case the obligation under bection 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been iul,,illed, interest under Section 34 of the said Act ca,r be grantec. Non deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proce eclings. In case r.lf non deposit with respect to the majcri[y of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the ..landowners,, as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 45

366.5. In 'case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to nonpayment or non deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section zaQ) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 2a(l ot the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).

366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 01.01.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five Years.

366.9. Section 24(2) ot the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded pioceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of eniorcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 01.01'2014. It does not revive stale and time barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor al{ow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to 46 reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in tlie treasury instead of court to inr,alidate acquisition." In the present case neither possession rrf the subject lancls had been taken nor compensation p,aid. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in its recent judgment reported in (2020) I SCC 129 in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Larl and Others opined that compliance of either of th,_a two conditions i,e., taking over of possession of the land or payment of compensation is good enough to sustain the acquisition,. In the present case, from the lnateriat available on record, it is not evident and clear that the possession of land in dispute was taken aftei. the acquisition was complete. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3 i.e., Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad, present Industries/IAP Ranga Reddy District, fite<l in W.P.No.1245 ol 2Ot2 on 22.L2.2O22 states that the possession of the Petitioner,s subject land had been taken over by the Government, however, it doe:i not give the details nor any documents are fited befor,e the 47 Court evidencing takiig over possession of the subject lands by way of panchanama nor any report of possession proceedings had been placed by the Respondents on record.

23. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure corporation presently Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, filed on 1O.O2.2O18 in W.P.No.1294 ot 2012 is also silent in so far as the particulars pertain3ng to the date when physical possession of the Petitioner's subject lands had been taken and para No' 8 of the said affidavit only states that the allegation that the possession had not been taken from the Petitioners, is incorrect. a h 18 Fe possession of the subiect lands was taken, the material document filed' by the Petitioner along with reply affidavit in February 2o23 in W'P'No'1245 of 201,2 refers to letter dated O9.11.2021 of the Commissioner' GHMC, addressed to the Petitioner herein vide Letter 48 No,13lKU,i TpS/CIR-2O/c HMC / ZO2L, which contradicts the same arnd a bare perusal of the contents of the said letter dated O9.11.2021 in fact catt upon the petitioner and request the petitioner to handover the possrrssion of the sutrject land. A bare perusal of material document dated 1O.11.2O21 fited along with the reply affidavit which in fact is the response of the petitioner in W.P.No.L245 of 2OZ2 to the letter dated Og.LL.ZOzt of the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Munricipat Corporation, indicates that the petitioner,s reprly in relation to the request of the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, that the petitioner gives his consent to hand over the possession of the subject Iand bearing Sy.No.48 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampalty Mandal, Ranga Reddy I)istrict, admeasuring 1680.34 sq. yards for the purpos;e of widening of the road from Khajaguda Lake to Nanakramguda ORR along Urdu University Compound Wall subiect h b n h d e a d 07.o4.20 L2amended with G.O.M s.No.330, MA, 68 G N 2 L2. 7 m tof d 49 lanlLlf that being the position as on 09'11'2021, the plea of the 4th Respondent (TSIIC) in W'P'No'1294 of 2012 that the possession has been taken over way back in February 2O18 as borne on record is factually incorrect. of the letters dated 24. Ab re Deru I of the conten 09. L.202L and 1 .Lt-2021 referred to above also v v affidavit filed bvSsR oonde t BHLP LatPa ra Nos. 28. t 31 38 t e soondent tha DOSS f the Petitioners b d th G ve men s n u e n n n m 20 n P t r e 1 11 e h e u Re t t n t n n of the Danc anam and t e dat when the notice had been issued to the Petitioner after Dassino of the 50 Aw rd und r Section 12( )ofLa nd Aco uisitio n Act, 1894. This court oDines that the resoo ndents herein must comDlv with the rocedu cou asition and the DOn ents heretn are oove ned bv the ru Ie of law and ooate to itself bevond wha!--!s Drovided bvthec nstitution.

25. Res Dond ent w.P o.12 f raN 4 e ifi taken co tend inq tha the Petitioners re _nlol__in DOSSession of the s biect land, tranq elv no reDort of the osse s brou htonrecord bv anv of the esDon dents rna.nv of id f,a v h b o

26. In the counter affidavit filed by the 9th Responden.! i.e., Emaar Hilis Township pvt. Ltd., filed in March 20 Z2 it is specifically denied at para No.29 that the petitioners have not been paid an!,compensation and that no notice was is:;ut,d for delivery of pc,ssession of acquired land and the petitiorrer s are put to strict proof of the same and at para No.! 3 it is 51 specifically contended that it is settled principle of law that after passing of Award, taking of possession and delivery of the said land to the beneficiary, the retention of the possession by the Petitioner is far from truth and such possession if any would tantamount to being unlawful, however, none of the documents filed on Respondents nor the counter affidavits filed on behalf of all the Respondents give sDecafic details and evidence behalf of all the e n n h vt t notice for deliverv of Doss ssron o acour la nd and h f id, oetitioner havrno ived the n ice under S 2 2 h Ac 4 n h ndents that the A Cou u oheld the cou lsl ron lands in ou stion and h nce, heo o n n rescrl ed bv a sta te in the res rt to a Dro present case. i This Court opines that forcible Petitioners of their private properties dispossession I 52 without following due process of law tantamount to violation of Petitioners human rights and also their Constitutional rights under Article 3OO-A of the Constituticn of India.

27. The Apex Court (2023) Li\/etaw (SC) in the judgment reported in 3O2 in its judgment: dated LL.O4.2O23 in Land and Building Department, through Secretary and Another Vs. Attro Devi & Others at para 12 observed as under : issue as to what is meant by ,,possetssion "12. -l-he the ,ar d by the State after its acquisition" has a lscr been consicjrlred by Constitution Bench of Hon,ble liu;:rreme Court in Indore Development Authority,s case (sup,1'6 ;. It is opined therein that after the acqu sition of land arrri passing of award, the land vests in t re State free fronr all encumbrances. The vesting of land wil:h the State is with possession. Any person retair inr.1 the posses:;ion thereafter has to be treated tresp,,lsser. When arge chunk of land is acquired, the State s not supposeC to put some person or police force to retain the possession and start cultivating on the land till it is utilized, The Government is also not supposed to start residin(: or physically occupying the same once prf,cess of the acquisition is complete. If after the procerss of acquisil.ion is complete and land vest in the St:ter free from a I encumbrances with possession, any person retainir g the land or any reentry made by any per:,;on is nothrng else but trespass on the State land. F.el,:lvant paraqraphs 244, 245 and 256 are extracted belo,^/: ",244. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provided that pr:rs;session of land may be taken by th 3 l;tate Go'yernment after passing of an awa.d and 53 theredpon land vest free from all encumbrances in the State Govdrnment. Similar are the provisions made iin the iase of urgency in Section 17(1). The word '"possession" has been used in the Act of 1894,'whereas in Section 2a(2) ot Act of 2013, the expression "physical possession" is used. It is submitted that drawing of panchnama for taking over the possession is not enough when the actual ion remained with the landowner h h v !on u n he t e DOSS dss the Iand which vests in the tate free from all encumbrances. h s f h e

245. The question which arises whether there is any difference between taking possession under the Act of 1894 and the expression "physical possession" used in Section 24(2). As a matter of iact, what was contemplated under the Act of 1894, I by taking the possession meant only physical possession of the land. Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013 always amourlted to taking over physical possession of the land. When the State Government acquires land dnd drawns up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking the physical possession of the land' On the large chunk of property or otherwise which is acquired, the bovernment is not supposed to put some other person or the police force in possession to retain it and sta rt cultivating it till the land is used by it for the ptirpose for which it has been acquired' The Goveriment is not supposed to start residing or to occupy it once Possession has been physicially drawing the inquest proceedings for taken by possession thereof. Thereafter, if any obtaining 54 f Jrther retaining of land or any reentry is n.ade on tre land or someone sta rts cultivation on tl e open land or starts residing in the outhouse , ,,-.tc., is deemed to be the trespasser on land which in possession of the State. The poss()ss on of lrespasser always inures for the benefit c,f t re real lwner that is the State Government in th 3 c ase.

256. ves rno urred. ls an indefeasible riqht i:rtr under Sec ion 6, notice under Sectio 9. ,aw rd und r secti n 11 a d then DOSSe.sS ton. e statutory provision of vesting of prr:perty 'l-h solutely free from all encumbrances has to be ;r:corded full effect. Not only the possess or vests irr the State but all other encumbrances ar3 also lemoved forthwith. The title of the landholder r:eases and the state becomes the absolu:e ,twner ar,d in possession of the property. Thereafter there is no control of the landowner ov<tr the 6:rcperty. He cannot have any animus to tal,:e the Srroperty and to control it. Even if he has re..:ained the possession or otherwise trespassed ul)on it z,fl.er possession has been taken by the S ta:t;e, he i:: a trespasser and such possession of trr_,spasser €nsures for his benefit and on behalf of the C v1/n e f. /' In the present case however land vests with the petitioners as on date and there is no materierl on record to indicate that possession of the petitioners subject Iands had been taken over by the Government 55 and to that effect the Gontents of the letters dated 09.11.2o21 and 10.11.2021 are self explanatory' It is that in Section 24(2) ot Act of 2013, pertinent to not€ ion'is used and Sec ion ron D hvsical DOSSe 'the exD 4 2 h not the Dossession in anv other form.

28. Tha Court also takes note of the fa that the r o r was lv rs n f affidavit fil ed h j U n The n Resoondent No.4 in .P.N -1245 of 201 No. Res n e n a Ltr n m e s h u s a n n n L h freeto u ilize t ea uired land r anv oubli ou rDose n n -s foundfault bv the itio er. Th h h n 1 v o 56 ,a arami Reddv& obse rved a g under : hers at Dara Nos. 36 t!--alS "36. 'l'he next question which merits examination is whethr: - the High Court was justified in diiecting restor,ttion of Iand to respondent No.1. In Mrs, gr:hrozE Acquisitiorr (.)fficer, the Di,r si on Bench of the High Court categoric ally held at th€ exercise und ertaken for the acquisitio r r;f land was vi:iated due to fraud. The Division Bench w;rs also of the r,,iew that the acquisition cannot be valij ir pa rt and ir valid in other parts, but did not nullif,r ;,rll transf( lrs on the premise that other writ petitio rs and a writ a p peal nvolving challenge to the acquisition p rocee rl rngs were pending. State n domai11,,

37. -:hr: pleadings and documents filed by the prrties in these ca ses clearly show that the Corporition h; d rrade a farse projection to the State Government that land was ner::ded for execution of tourism related pro_ects. In the m€ eting of officers held on t3.7.Lg87, i.:. after almost fcur years of the issue of declaratior r.rnder Secticn 5, the Managing Director of the Corporation candidlrr admitted that the Corporation did not hav,: the requisit:) finances to pay for the acquisition of l;rnci and that D61,sn6nda pai, who had already enter:d into agreem.)nts with some of the landowners for p trc;hase of land, was prepared to provide funds subject to certain conditions including transfer of 12 trcrel; 34 guntas land to him for house building project. Aft.er B months, ihe Corporation passed resoludon- for transfer of ove- 72 acres land to Dayananda pai. The Corporat.icn also transferred two other parcels of land in favou- r:F Bangalore International CLntre an,j M,/s. 57 universal Resorts Limited. TheSe transactions reveal the true designrof the officers of the Corporation, who first succeeded iin persuading the State Government to acquire huge chunk of land for a public purpose and then transferred major portion of the acquired land to private individual and corporate entities by citing poor financial health of the Corporation as the cause for doing so.

38. The Courts have repeatedly held that in exercise of its power of reminent domain, the State can compulsorily acquire land of the private persons but this proposition cannot be over-stretched to legitimize a patently illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken for depriving the landowners of their constitutional right to property with a view to favour private persons. It needs no emphasis that if land is to be acquired for a company, the State Government and the company is bound to comply with the mandate of the provisions contained in Part VII of the Act. Therefore, the Corporation did not have the jurisdiction to transfer the land acquired for a public purpose to the companies and thereby allow them to bypass the brovisions of Part VII. The diversification of the purpose for which land was acquired under Section 4(1) read with Section 6 clearly amounted to a fraud on the power of eminent domain. This is precisely what the High Court has held in the judgment under appeal and we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the same more so because in Annaiah and others v. State of Karnataka and others (supra), the High Court had quashed the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 in their entirety and that judgment has become final. 39. The judgment in Om Parkash v. Union of India (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Shri trtaganind is clearly distinguishable' What has been held in that case is that quashing of the acquisition proceedingslwould ensure to the benefit of only those who had approached the Court within reasonable time and not to ,those who remained silent, In this case, respondent No.1 independently questioned the acquisition proceedings and transfer of the acquired 58 land t: M/s. Universal Resorts Ltd. In other \,vords, he approar:hed the High Court for vindication of hirj right and sr.rcceeded in convincing the Division Benctr that the action l"aken by the Corporation to transfer his land to M/s. L niversal Resorts Limited was wholl.r illegal, arbitra ry and unjustified. 40. rnth e s on so, fulfil his o liqation i terms of the imo qned iud o ment with n a Derro ofBw ks from dav. The a DDe|la nt shall t.e. return of land to resoo dent No. within next I weekg_!" the aDnea ls a re rlismtssed- fulfil heir ob liqatiorr. No.1 d

29. This Eourt as observed bv the Aoex Court in its varro s iudoements oDines that when Iand is notified co u is itio N DUTD se bv overnment,. the tor is obl iqated to hold an enouirv on cqltA-in Coll G relevant as e c u ersons nd oass an Awa conce rnino (a) the ex d comoensation asmavb determined und r the Ac the a Dorti n (c) the oersons known or be e ti ved to be nterested t1 e land. The verv obiect issu ino the notice under the e a fair and reasona le oooo unitv to the lnte sted De rsons to submit th ir cla im with resoect to the comoe-nsa ion for the acoui d land, 59 m n factors that mav be relevant in the cont aco u isation and the inte entitled to ma e a state ent befo whereuoon the Collector is oblioated to hold an enouirv ont e obiect ons sub itted bv the inte sted De Derso ns are f rther the Coll ector, F r nAw com nsation within t e statuto rv scheme of the ct, it rinq rs oiven is im Derative that a fai oDoortu niW of h r n n w T rt h the in rested Derson Is oiven an h his h r A to he Dresc ribed Dr oced re es clallv whenith as seemrn olv effected he inte sted o rson uld militate h DT nt ca T e d t il and there has been a dive ificatio of b total lv uniusti ed 3(). The Aoex Co rt in its rece t iudo ent d ted ls. 07. a.2023 reoorted in (2O23) Livelaw (SC) 632 an 60 of Dadra Tiruoati Devel Ders Vs. The ljnion Territo and N aqa r, on the qrognd that fair opportunitv of hearinq h:d_Ogt been oive o4. 5.2020 Dassed ln resDect of the acou ired _la.nd of the Aooellant there u nder to the claima nt and the A ard as set aside tooet n the IMDUO ed iudqment nd the order and the Coll ector was di the H iqh Cou rt edtoa uef h noticeto on2,. ofth 20 13 Act ._!tJthin the ADDell ant un erS two (o2) eg.pv of the order and further the Resoond ent /Coll ect CE@@. t'anv e Coll ector shall thereafter h ear the ooella t's reor entati e and Dass the sti ulated oeriod and a r n ut n the scheme o 2013 ct with a clear sti Dul that the Coll ector sh ll oass he Awa as ea rlv as le, but not later than three (O3) mon hs fronllhe DOSS date of receiot of the copv of the order. This Court o tnes th tthea ve referred ADD ies in o ri ncaDle to the cts of the or ent caseas well. 61

31. The Apex. Court in the judgment reported in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar Vs. State of Guiarat repoted in (1995) Suppl. (1) SCC 596 at para No. 48 observed as under : Para 48 : In other words, Article 3OO-A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 30O-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.

32. The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right, though it is not a basic feature of the Constitution or a Fundamental Right. Human Rights are considered to be in realm of individual rights, such as the right to health, the raght to livelihood, the right to shelter and employment, etc., now however human rights are gaining an ever greater multifaceted dimension. The, right to property is considered very much to be a part of such new dimension. (Lachman Dass vs. ,agat Ram, 2oo7 (10) SCC 448, Amarjith singh 62 vs. State of Punjab 2O1O (1O) SCC 43, State of M,P. vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan ZOLL (7) SCC 639,, State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar, 2011 (10) SCC 4O4, Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of U.P., 2O1 1 (9) scc 3s4).

33. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 in Tukaram Kana Joshi Vs. Maharastra Industrial Development Corporation at para I observedr as under : '1-he Apex court held that the claima rts were depriv,: J of immovable property in 1964, wh€,n Article 31 of tle Constitution was still intact and the riEht to proper-tv was a part of Fundamental Rights und 3r Article 19 of l.he Constitution. It is pertinent to note thal- even after tle right to property ceased to be a funrlarnental right, l-aking possession of or acquiring the prrtpr,rrty of the citizen most certainly tantamount to depriv;rtion and IE' I' h r{anrirr.afian arn faka n lace onl to 'laUr', as the said word as soecifically_b_Clng used in Art e3 oo.A of the Constitution. Such deorivation can onlv be bv resortino toa Drocedure Drescribed bv a statute. The .same ca n not be donebvwa v of exclusive float () order or adminastr tion caorice. c I 63

34. It is settled law virhenas tute descri a thino to be done in a oarticular manner it should be done in that manner or n t at all. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs' Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2Oa7) SCC Online Hyd 426). B) The Division Benc of ADex Court in its iud oment .1O.2O21 in Suoertech Ltd. Vs. Emerald Cou rt oorted 21 SCC Owner Resident Wel are Associati n and Ors., sc3 referring to Taylor Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D426' Nazir Ahmed vs. King Emperor reported in (1936) L.R.63 Ind Ap372 and Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd.' Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Aurangahad & Ors', reported in AIR,1960 sC aol at para No.13 observed as under : "It is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Hence when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily 64 forbidlen. This Court too, has adopted this ma<irr. This rule p'cvides that an expressly laid down mocie ol, doing someth ng necessarily implies a prohibition on dr:ing it in any c:ther way.

35. In so far as the plea of delay is concerned as raised by the Respondents, this Court opines that delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors. Continuity of cause of actiorr etc., that apart if the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, this Court opines that the Court should necessarily exercise its discretion. This Court opines that the present writ petition is not hit by the do(trine of delay and laches since the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience, since plea of physical possessi,)n of the subject lands having been taken over by the Respondent Authority in the counter affidavits filed on oath before this Court on behalf of the Respondents is unsupporterl by any evidence and is in fact contrary to the contents in the letters dated 09.11.2021 and 10.11.2O21. lln the present case, this Court opines that 55 the Petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

36. The Aoex Court in the iudoment re D rted an 2(J22 232 in Sunil Kumar Rai & Others Vs. SCC Online Glr+a Dilr- r ^f P- at+h6Fc rf -+6'l ,'l ,1, 22 -+ P rc7 t a 10, and 11 observed as under : Para 7= Article 32 of the Constitution provides for a Fundamental Right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. The founding fathers contemplated that the very right to approach this Court when there is a violation of Fundamental Rights, should be declared as beyond the reach of Parliament and, therefore, it is as a part of judicial review that the right under Article 32 has been put in place and invoked from time to time. That in a given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of self- restraint which is exercised by the Court having regard to various Considerations which are germane to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Court to interfere in a particular case. The right under Article 32 df the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right and it,is always open to a person complaining of violation of Fundamental Rights to approach this Couft. This is, no doubt, subject to the power of the Court to relegate the party to other proceedings. 66 Para 8 : At the heart of the Constitution lies ::ertain principles which have, in fact, been recogniserJ as part of thr: basic structure. Article 14 of the Co tst itut:on proclairrs right to equality. The right against unfair State ir:tion is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated equall'r is tabooed under Article 14 of the Constiiution. A oelson entitled to be treated as a me mber of Scheduted Tribe under Article 342, cannot be treated on par witl a person who is brought in by an incompetent Bociy, r, iz., the State in the manner done. Article 21 of the Co-rstitution again is the fountain heacl of many rights rvhich are part of the grand mandate u'hi::h has been fr:m time to time unravelled by this Corrrt giving rise tr:r the theory of unenumerated rights und,:r the Consti:ution. While liberty is a dynamic concep - c,rpable of enr:ompassing within it a variety of Rig htri, the irredur:ible minimum and at the very core of liberrty, is freedc,nr from unjustifiable custody.

10. We may take up the first preliminary objt:ct on by the Stir[e, namely, that the petitioners have ap:rr;,ached this (..ourt with considerable delay. The irnt,ugned NotiFic rtion is issued in August, 2016. A perso n ::annot be :saiC to be aggrieved merely upon the issuarrce of an instrur-nent or of a law by itself. In fact, the r:r)urt may refirse to examine the legality or the validity oF I I'tw or 67 order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person. No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant. However, we may only indicate, ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action and therefore, a person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge. We must not be oblivious to the fact that based on the Notification, it appears that FIRs came to be lodged by persons claiming to be members of the Scheduled Tribe community and seeking to invoke the 1989 Act. The FIRs lodged in the year 2020 occasioned the petitioners to approach Courts seeking protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Two of the petitioners have not secured such protection. Petitioner No. 1, it appears was not arrested. But even assuming for a moment, that the petitioners have come with some delay, we find reassurance from the opinion of this Court in the judgment reported in Assam Sanmilita Mahasanqha v. Union of India (2015) 3 SCC 1, wherein this Court has inter alia held as follows:-

32. ".....Further, in Olga Tellis v. it has now been Bombay Municipal Corpn., conclusivelv held that all fundamental riohts Given thaqe f^l n^ r^ aa.irtdt ha w1 m n has come for'this Court to sav that at least fundainental riqht to life and oersonal libertv, delav or lachds bv itself without more t the doors of t would not be sufficient o shu the court on anv petitioner law the ln h 29 \ n 68 11,, Therefore, we do not think we should be detai[ed bv the obiection tEtt-lhet del-ay. an action under Article 32 when vlolatior of Fundamental Riohtsisc Iearlv at sfake

37. Section 12 of the Act does not prescribe any particular form of the notice. Section 45 of the Act prescribes the manner of service of any of the notices under the ,Act and the same reads as under:- .45. Service of notices (1) Service of a ny notice uncler this Act shall be made by delivering or,:errdering a cop'/ thereof signed in the case of a noti:e under sectiorr 4, by the officer therein mentioned, ar d, in the case ol any other notice, by or by order of the C<:llector or the J udge. (2) Whenever it may be practicable, the servi:e of the notlce shall be made on the person therein narred. (3) Wrt:n such person cannot be found, the servi(.e may be marJe on any adult male member of h s family residirrgt wlth him; and if no such adult male member can b:: found, the notice .may be served by f ixirg the copy or the outer door of the house in which tle :rerson the:-ei'r named ordinarily dwells or carries on ru:.;iness, or by t'ir(ing a copy thereof in some conspicuorJsi p ace in the office of the officer aforesaid or of the Colle:tc,r or in 69 the court-house, and also in some conspicuous patt of the land to be acquired: Provided that if the Collector or Judge shall so direct, a notice may be sent by post, in a letter addressed to the person named therein at his last known residence, address or place of business and [registered under section 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898)1, and service of it may be proved by the production of, the addressees receipt." Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Act states that service of any notice under the Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a signed copy thereof. Sub- section (2) says that whenever it may be practicable, the service shall be made on the person named therein. Sub-section (3) says that when the person named cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult member of his family residing with him and if no such adult member can be found, the notice may be served by affixing a copy on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named ordinarily resides or carries on business or by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place in the office of the Collector or in the court:house as the case may be and also in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired. Proviso to sub-section (3) of section 45 states that the Collector or a Judge may direct that the notice may be sent by post in a letter addressed to the person named therein at his last known iesidence, address, or place of business by post is to be made by a registered post. Bare perusal of 70 Sectic n 45 would show that a notice is requited to be serverl, when practicable, on the person to vlhom the notice is issued. When the person is not found, the servict: may be made on any other male member of his fanrily residing with him. The service cannot be m,lde on a femi: e member whether adult or minor of tl- e I'amily. In thi) present case admittedly the notice wirs not served on the petitioners nor was it served on ,rn'1r adult memLrer in Petitioner's family. ftis coult opines thouq a soecific averment as been made bv the Petitioners in the affidavit filed in suDDort of the writ Betitions with reqard to non service_oj_Egtigg u nder Section L2(2). the Co unter affidavit filed bv the rqsoondents does not answer the sam.e nor does it explain when notice under Section 12(21 was issued to the Detitioners and served uDon the pg_tj!!g_ners.

38. _Ttt-e Aoex Court in it its recent iudqment dated

06.04.2022. reoorted in 2022(71 SCC 5O8 in Sukh Dutt Ratra and .another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh_ 3nd others referrinq to the iudsLent lcDoltsdjn ]a2O(2) SCC 69 in Vidva Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh obseled as underi: "12.9. n a democratic polity governed by th,: rule of law, tl-re State could not have deprived a citizen cf their propertv without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the. -udgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. 77 MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 4911 wherein it was held that the for acquisition, State must comply with the proi€dure requisition, or any other permis.sible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State gciverned by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.

12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 4O4 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 7691 held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension. "

39. The ADex Court in the iudoment reDorted in 2OO5 7 scc 627 in "Hin nP f m r Limited Vs. DARIUS Shapur, Chennai and Others. vide its Judoment dated 2O.09.2OO5 at oara No.29 observed as u nder: "29. The Act is an exDroDriatorv leqislation. This Court in State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma observed that in such a case the provisions of the statute should be strictlv construed as it deprives a Derson of his land without consent. [See also Khub State of Rajasthan and CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Chand v Ltd.l There cannot, thereFore, be any doubt that in a case of this nature due application of mind on the part of the statutory authority was imperative." 4(J. This court opines that the oleas out-forth .bv all the learned counsel aooearino on behalf of ndents and the iudqments relied upon -!.v-lbc ResDondents do not have application to the facts of the Res case i.e.

1. Otherr:, 2012 (1) SCC 792 (Para 28, 29, 39). tLaghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Har'/ana and

2. Rar.rnaq Education Foundation Vs. State of H,::ryana and Olhers, 2015 (1) SCC767 (Para 11 and 2).

3. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another ',/s. G. Jayar;rnra Reddy and Others, 2011 (10) SCC 60t (Para 25,32 ,:nd 33)

4. De hi Development Authority Vs. Suhbir S n Otherr;, 2016 (16) SCC 258 (Para 9, 19,20 and 2 .)

5. Budhinath Jha Vs. State of Bihar, 2O2O SCC Online Pat 2682 (Para B and 9) 6 Hatig or Tea Estate Vs. Union of India (Para 23) 7 Opt c Circuit India Limited Vs. Axis Bank anrl Others, 2027 ie) SCC7O7 (Para 14)

41. Takiqq into consideration : a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances 'rf the case, b) Taking into consideration the contents rrf the letter dated O9.lL.2O2l of the Commissioner, cHMC addressed to the petitioner vide l..etter No. 1 3 / KUITPS/CIR- 20lGHMC / 2O2L I 73 c) The contents of the .response of the petitioner dated 10.11.2O2L, to the letter dated 09.11.2O21 of the Commissioner GHMC addressed to the petitioner, d) Duly considering the averments made at para Nos. 28, 3Ot 31 and 38 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 8th respondent (referred to and extracted above), e) Duly considering the interim orders of this Court dated, 2O.OL.2OL2 passed in W.P.No.1245 of 2OL2 and 24.O.L2O[2 passed in W.P.No.1294 ot 2()L2t f) The observations in the judgments of the Apex Court referred to and extracted above, S) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents in W.P.No. L294 of 2012, W.P.No.65O1 of 2OL2, W.P.No.1245 oJ 2Ol2 and W.P.No.6577 ol 2O12 (referred to and extracted above), h) In the light of the discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above, W.P.No. L294 ol 2012, W.P.No.65O1 ot 2012, W.P.No.1245 ol 20L2 and W.P.No.6577 of 2OL2 are allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 74 Miscell.rneous petitions, if any, pending, s;hall stand closed. MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Dated : 0.1. Ct6 .2024 Note: L.R. :npy to be marked (b/o) yvkrlktm