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 permit the petitioners herein to file additional material papers in WP.No.10990 of 2011 . Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.VENKAT RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5 : GP FOR REVENUE / THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI RANGA RAO NELLUTLA W.P.NO: 36401 OF 2024 Between: 1 2 Syed Nazeer Ahmed, S/o Late Syed Sayeed Ahmed, Aged about 38 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No.1-5-358/4, Dayara Market, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad - 500 020. Hyderabad, Telangana. Syed Nusrath Ahmed, S/o Late Syed Sayeed Ahmed, Aged about 40 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No.1-5-358/A, Dayara Market, Zamistanpur, lVlusheerabad - 500 020. Hyderabad, Telangana. .....PETITIONERS AND

1. State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary.

2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Kangara Kolan - 501 5'10, Ranga- Reddy District.

4. Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give/allot alternative land having equal value of the land in Ranga Reddy District in lir: t of land admeasuring Ac. '15. 00 gnts. , in Sy. No 9/1 , situated at Saroornagil Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r:i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thb High Corr t may be pleased to directing the respondents to give/allot alternative land havi rg equal value of the land in Ranga Reddy District in lieu of land admeasuring A r 1 5. 00 gnts. , in Sy. No. 9/'1 , situated at Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Rang: Reddy District in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.109 90 ()F 2011 AND W.P.No.364OL OF 2024 COMMO ORDER: 1 Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, both these writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order. 2 Heard Sri V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Assignment in W.P.No.36401 of 2024; Sri A.Ajay Reddy, learned senior counsel and Ms. E.Anisha Reddy counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for Revenue appeared on behalf of the learned Advocate General for the official respondents in W.P.No.10990 of 2011 and perused the material available on record. WR.IT PETITION NO.364010 F 2f)24 3 This writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the official respondents therein to allot alternative land having equal value of the land in Ranga Reddy District in lieu of land admeasuring Ac.15p0- '--- 2 guntas in Sy.No.9/1, situated at Saroornagar Villzrr e and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioners. 4 The case of the petitioners was that the p: :itioner's great- grandfather was granted 60 acres of land by the Nizam State in Sy.No.9/1, located in Saroornagar Village. -- le petitioner's grandfather sold 45 acres of this land in 1968 to one P.V.Hanumantha Rao, keeping the remaining 15 a- es for himself. Their grandfather was issued an Occupancy Rights (i rtificate for the 15 acres under the AP (TA) Abolition of In: n Ad, 1955. Subsequently, the said Occupancy Rights Certificate r as set aside by the Collector, R.R. District vide order dated 01.04.19[ii on appeal and the order of the Collector, R.R. District. Cancelling the Occupancy Rights Certificate was challenged in W.P.No. z ,20/1988 and W.P.No.2449i 1988 and the said Writ Petitions wer3 disposed by order dated 31.12.1991 in W.P.No.2449l1988 directir g the State to implement the order of Board of Revenue in 81/ 1034173 dated

06.08.1974 in favour of the petitioners. It is furthe' submitted that the State Government filed L.G.C.No.1/1988 on the fil, r of the Special 7 3 Court under Section 8 of A.P.L.G. (P) Act, 1982 in respect of Ac.60-00 in Sy.No.9/l, Saroornagar Village claiming it as Government land against their grandfather and another L.G.C,No.39/1988 was filed against others. L.G.C.No.U1988 and L.G.C.No.39/1988 were allowed by the Common Judgment of Special Court under A.P.L.G.C. (P) Act by order dated 30.07.1992 declaring the land is Government land and all the persons claiming through them and all persons in possession are liable to be removed from the possession by giving two months time granted for vacating the subject land and handover to the State Government. In compliance with the above orders of the Special Court, under Land Grabbing, the possession of the subject land of Ac.60-00 gnts., in Sy.No.9/l was taken over by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal under cover of Panchanama on

01.08.1992. Being aggrieved by the Common Judgment dated

30.07.L992 passed 1.G.C.No.U1988, L.G.C.No.39/1988 and L.G.C.No.39/1988, several writ petitions were filed vide W.P.No.17015 of 1992, W.P.No.1007411992, W.P.No.10075/L992 and W.P.No.100761L992. The erstwhile High Court of A.P., by common judgment dated 18,09.1996 along with W.A.No.2841t992 4 filed by the State Government questioning the grar. of Occupancy Rights Certificate, disposed of all the above matters ry setting aside the Judgment of the Special Court in L.G.C Ilo.1/1988 and L.G.C.No.39/1988 with a categorical finding that thr: petitioners are not land grabbers and that the order will not bar the , iuthorities from acquiring the land for public purpose. Against th{l orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the State Government preferrer Appeal (Clvil) No.8601-8605 of 1997 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal r n 14.10.2003. 5 It is further submitted that the Deputy Collect rr & Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal on the representation on 08.11,,007 as well as in pursuance of the orders of the Apex Court and in:; ructions of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District in 81168912006 dar:d 15.11.2007, directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Man<l rl Surveyor of Saroornagar to handover the possession of the land :o the L.Rs. of Late Ghulam-Ahmed on 12.01.2008. The then M.R.,l ., Saroornagar symbolically on 12.01.2008 under cover of Panchanarr a handed over under two spells i.e. Ac.8-00 gts., of vacant land and \c. 7-00 gnts.^ l 5 covered by compound walls and houses total measuring Ac.15-00 gnts., and the same was informed to the Registrar, Hon'ble Special Court, vide Lr. No. B/22 19/2004 dated 12.07.2010. 6 It is further submitted that physical possession of the land was not handed over because on the representation of the L.Rs of P.V.Hanumantha Rao over the land to an extent of Ac.45 of land in Sy.No.9/1, Saroornagar Village and Mandal. R.R. District, they were allotted alternative land to an extent of Ac'35-00 in Sy.No.288 to 290 and 296 part situated at Budwel Village, R.R. District in the year 2009 but they refused it and filed Writ Petition No.10990 of 2011 seeking to allot alternative land in lieu of the land admeasuring Ac.45-00 gnts., in Sy.No.9/1 of Saroornagar Village and Mandal, R.R. District on the file of this Hon'ble High Court and the same is pending. 7 Further submitted that even though the various courts including the Apex Court, declared that the petitioners and their ancestors were absolute owners they were not allowed to enjoy the subject land by the State Government due to pendenry of the cases. In the meanwhile third parties occupied the subject land and that the state \ :* 6 Government listed the subject property in the prohit itory properties list i.e., as Government land in Section 22-A ',.egister. As a consequence, the petitioners are not allowed alienate the property. As such they filed Writ Petition No.9934/2t;3 on the file of this Hon'ble High Court and the same is pending. P,l itioners fufther submitted that on the representation of their G.t' A. Holder, the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Div sional Officer, Kandukur Division gave a report on 29.12.2023 :o the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District statlng that the subi,16 land was in the occupation of the third parties and houses were < onstructed and it was still recorded as Government land and kept irr prohibitory list and no transactions were possible. Hence the gr rtitioners were deprived of enjoying their property at the fault of the State Government only. In spite of repeated requests and epresentations being made by the petitioners herein there is no posil ve action from the official respondents. B Hence the present writ petition seeking a rl rection to the official respondents to allot alternative land having eclr al value of the t 7 land in Ranga Reddy District in lieu of land admeasuring Ac'15'00 guntas in Sy.No.9/1, situated at Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioners. WRIT PE ONN o.1099 ooF20 11: g This writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the official respondents to allot alternative land having equal value of the land in Ranga Reddy District in lieu of land admeasuring Ac'45'00 guntas in Sy.No.9/1, situated at Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioners as requested in their representation dated

29.01.2010. 10 The case of the petitioners was that the father of the petitionersbynameSriP.V.HanumanthaRaooriginallypurchased Ac.45-00 gts of land in Sy.No.9/1 under registered sale deed dated

23.4.Lg68 from its original owner Gulam Ahmed, which forms part of Ac. 2g5-18 Gts. in Sy.No. 9/1. Thereafter, their father was conferred occupancy right certificate to the said land under the provisions of A.P.(TelanganaArea)AbolitionoflnamsActoflg55tothesaidland.. 8 11 It is further submitted that the Respondents ((i rvernment) filed LGC No.1/1988 and LGC No.39/1988, against their f:.her and others. Their father P.V. Hanumantha Rao also filed LGC No 20/1988 against the Government for recovery of possession before : re Special Couft under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act of 198.. The said LGC Applications were disposed off by a common _rdgment, dated

30.7.1992 by the Special Couft under A.P.Land Grab: ng (Prohibition) Act, allowing LGC No.1 of 1988 and LGC No.39 of 1988, while dismissing LGC No.20/88. Aggrieved thereby the p: _itioners carried the matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra ,radesh in Writ Petition No.10076 of 1992; 10074 of 1992; and t0075 of 1992 respectively. The Hon'ble High Court, by common i rdgment, dated

18.9.1996 along with Writ Appeal No.284 of 1992 fit d by the Govt., questioning grant of O.R.C. in favour of their fatlrr r, disposed off setting aside the judgment of the Special Couft in Ll C No.1 of 1988 and LGC No.39 of 1988, and allowed the LGC No,20 rf 1988 filed by the father of the petitioners herein, upholding the tit ( of their father. The said judgment, dated 18.9.1996 was confirm:1 by the Apex ',1 9 Court in SLP Nos.8601 of 1996 to 8605 of 1996 filed by the Government by order, dated 14.10.2003, by dismissing the said SLPs. It is submitted that, pursuant to the proceedings before the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, ending in their favour, declaring them as the owners, entitled for possession of Ac.45-00 Gts. of land in Sy.No.9/1 of Saroor Nagar Village, the petitioners being the LRs of P.V.Hanumantha Rao approached the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, for delivery of possession and the Special Court, by order dated 24.4.2006 directed the +th respondent to deliver possession. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners were put in possession to the extent of Ac.5-30 Gts. in Sy.No. 9/1. The remaining extent for which they are entitled, was not delivered, stating that, there were encroachments in the said lands and that, there is a proposal for giving alternative site to the Writ Petitioners, and the same is under consideration. The 4th Respondent has informed the said proposal before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, in I.A'No'486 of 2004 in LGC No.20 of 1988. The SPec ial Court by order, dated 24.3.2006, while recording the said proposal, has directed :o expedite the 10 matter. 12 It is further submitted that since then the petii )ners have been making representations to the Government from 04. 2.2008 onwards, requesting to expedite the matter to hand over poss :ssion of land of Ac.45-00 Gts. in Sy.No.9/1 of Saroornagar Village, c r, in alternative, to ldentifu an equally valuable Government land in r onsultation with the Petitioners and to hand over such land with absolute rights. Pursuant to the said representation, which was ;r ldressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, some i lternative lands were proposed by the Authorities at lower k: ,el to the 3'd Respondent/Collector, Ranga Reddy District, throu,S r letters, dated

06.02.2009, 11.02.2009 and thereafter, the 3'd ?:spondent sent reports to the Principal Secretary to Government (Fl,:venue), stating that, the land identified at Budvel Village is und,: possession of HUDA, through letter, dated 18.2.2009. 13 It is fufther submitted that thereafter the I etitioners have made a representation to the 2nd Respondent on I 9.01.2010, and Y /1 11 lastly, to the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue on 29.01.2010, requesting to expedite the pending request and hand over possession of Ac.45.00 Gts. of land in Sy.No.9/1 of Saroor Nagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to which they are entitled, as per the judgment of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, or, in alternative, to identifo an equally valuable any other Government land acceptable to the Petitioners and hand over the same with absolute rights at the earliest. But the Respondents, despite the several representations from 04.7.2008 till the last representation, dated 29.07.20t0, have failed to provide any alternative land, though they are under legal obligation to identifo equally valuable land, which the petitioners are entitled to, pursuant to the judgment in LGC No.20 of 1988 but in vain. Hence the writ petition. 74 The third respondent in this writ petition filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal i.e. respondent No.5 herein directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to handover possession of the land to the L.Rs of L2 late P.V. Hanumantha Rao, the writ petitioners hr: ein, vide Memo No.B/1689/07, dated 13.02.2008. Accordingly the 4andal Revenue Inspector handed over possession of the land t I an extent of Ac.45.00 gts to the third writ petitioner on 24.10.20() I under cover of panchanama. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitloners that the orders of the Special Court, High Couft and th,-. Apex Court are not implemented is incorrect and that the claim that lnly Ac.5-30 gts was handed over is also not correct. It is fufther su lmitted that the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibitirt r) Act, vlde its Order dated 03.9.2007 has specifically directed to restore the possession of the land as was existing on 01.8.199,1 i.e. the date on which the MRO claimed to have taken possessior by conducting panchanama. In accordance with the said direcl:i tns, possession was given to the petitioner No,3 herein who accep:{ d the same on

24.10.2008. Therefore, the subsequent claim made tl the petitioners for alternative land does not arise. The possession tf the land has been delivered in tune with the directions of thr: Special Court. Therefore, the petitioners now cannot turn around v ith the plea as claimed in the writ petition. The claim of the petiti( ners herein for 13 allotment of alternative land of equal value in lieu of Ac.45-00 gts of their land in Sy.No.9/1 of Saroornagar Village & Mandal deserves no consideration since the same land has already been handed over to them on 24.10.2008 under a cover of panchanama and srnce possession of the land has already been taken over by the legal heirs of late Hanumantha Rao, the claim for allotment of alternative land does not arise. Hence lt is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 15 As could be seen from the above factual pleadings, the sum and substance of the litigation was that the father of the petitioners in W.P.No.10990 of 2011 purchased the property from the original inamdars i.e. father of the petitioners in W.P.No.3640L of 2024. The father of the petitioners in W.P.No.3@07 of 2024 sold Ac.45.00 to the father of the petitioners in W.P.No.10990 of 2011 and thereafter ORC has been granted by the RDO under law. Land Grabbing Court in L.G.C.No.1/1988 has declared that the petitioners are land grabbers and that the land in an extent of Ac.60-00 is Government land. The said order was challenged before the High Court and after hearing all the parties the High Court allowed the writ petitions and Y };.. . I I L4 set aside the orders of the Special Court. The apt eal filed by the Government in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dir missed and the same attained finality. In the process, after the LCit. Court declared the petitioners as the land grabbers, the official r -.spondents had taken over the propefi in question which w ES subsequently encroached by encroachers and necessary pattas we re also given to the encroachers and civic amenities like rc lds, electricity infrastructure was provided. After a prolonged litigal.i :n and after the petitioners being declared as title holders and not i nd grabbers by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, tl-: petitioners in both the writ petitions became entitled for re-posses ;ion of the land in Sy.No.9/l, located in Saroornagar Village. As no , rction has been taken and as no land was available, the petitioners; filed the above writ petitions for grant of alternative land. 16 Therefore, it is not in dispute that the petitio' :rs in both the writ petitions are the title holders in respect of their respective holdings. So their rights are crystallized by virtue of tl e judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In ttr lt view of the 7 15 matter, the respondents are bound to allot the land to the petitioners by virtue of their entitlement since because of the lapse on the part of the official respondents the land in the subject survey number was encroached by others. When the issue is seized by the competent coufts, the official respondents are under lawful obligation to protect the property until the rights are crystallized. 17 The learned Government Pleader submitted that in an identical situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu vs. Dr.Vasanthi Veerasekaran {Civil Appeal No.8626 of 2OO9 dated 01.7.2019) held that State is not under compulsory obligation to allot or grant alternate land. It all depends upon the fact situation existing as on date, 18 However, at this juncture, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents would submit that no other land equivalent to that extent is available either in Hyderabad or in Ranga Reddy District to allocate to the petitioners. He would further submit that if it is agreeable to the petitioners some other ( ) 16 land would be identified outside Hyderabad anc Ranga Reddy districts and would be allocated to the petitioners. 19 The learned counsel for the petitioners in both I re writ petitions accepted the proposal made by the learned Governrr ent Pleader and would seek to direct the official respondents to allcx ate some other land to the petitioners in lieu of non-availability rl land either in Hyderabad or in Ranga Reddy, but it should be err uivalent to the value of the extent of the land, which the petitioners i re entitled to. 20 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi vs, State of H.P1 held as follows:

10.1. The Appellant was forcibly expropriated of her propert in 1967, when the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by ,rticle 31 in Part III of the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to I rivate property, which could not be deprived without due process of law and u )on just and fair compensation. 10.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundament. I right by the Conshtution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, t continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right L r Jer Article 300A of the Constitution. Article 300A provides that no person sh,r be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispo:;ess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure establis red by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly includec in Article 300A, can be inferred in that Article.

10.4 In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 1j SCC 517, this Court held that: ( ' (2ozo) 2 scc s69 Y a7

21. If the right of property is a human rlght as also a constitutional right, the saire cannot be taken away except in accordance with law' Articie 3OO-A of the Constitution protects such right The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the. provisions of Arti.l" :OO-e of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the Respondent-State is directed to pay the compensaUon on the same terms as awardedbytheReferenceCourtvideorderdatedoT.0T.2015inAnakhSingh.s iase (i.e. Land Reference No. 1 of 2011 RBT No. 0u13) atongwith all statutory benedG including solatium, interest, etc. wlthin a period of 8 weeks' treating it asacaseofdeemedacquisition.AnAffidavitofcomplianceisdirectedtobe filed by the State before this Court within 10 weeks' 2l In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, without going into that aspect i'e' value of the land, in order to put a quietus to the litigation, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to identifo appropriate land with mutual consent, without any encumbrances in lieu of extent of the land belonging to the petitioners in view of the rlghts accrued on the petitioners and to ensure the right guaranteed under Article 300- A of the constitution of India and accordingly take necessary steps in accordancewithlawforallocatingthesametothepetitionersand complete the entire exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably' within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.Intheabsenceofwhich,petitionersareentitledtothe I I r} 18 just compensation to be determined in terms of th : Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisitior Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, also known as the Lanc Acquisition Act, 2013 and accordingly the respondents shall take appt't priate steps, in accordance with law. 22 With the above directions, both the writ petitirt ts are allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any p :nding in these two writ petitions shall stand disposed of. SD/.A.H AS: //TRUE COPY// \ .I i. GOWRI SHANKAR i STANT REGISTRAR I ,--.. -_- \ SECTION OFFICER To SA

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangzi a Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Namp€ ly Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Kangara [<r lan - 50'1 5'10, Ranga- Reddy District.

4. The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divir;i rnal Officer, Rajendranagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Saroornagar, Ran,l r Reddy District. 6. Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNIVENT, High Court for the , Jtate of Telangana at I Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Stzrl ) of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. One CC to SRI V.V.RAMANA, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI B.VENKAT RAMA RAO, Advocate (OPr, l) 10.One CC to SRI RANGA RAO NELLUTLA, Advocate (O: JC) 1 1.Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.10990 o12011 AND 36401 of 2024 HE S i.q \' i J JAN 2[28 v t I -)-,' () .l.l \'i ::-j' 1 D1-l(lii\:::'-2' -aa''.- =-'" - ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIOIIJ WITHOUT COSTS. .Y t, I i