Telangana High Court

Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin vs The Union Of India on 4 September, 2024

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                   WRIT PETITION No.11883 of 2024

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the inaction of the respondents in initiating the land acquisition proceedings in lieu of the delivery of possession of the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.16-19 guntas in Dakhla No.449 in Sy.No.1/1 of Kancha Imarath, Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per orders in E.A.No.21 of 2023 in E.P.No.103 of 2007 in O.S.No.333 of 1986, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to forthwith initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land and pay the compensation amount to the petitioner without any delay whatsoever in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 together with interest at 18% per annum..."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his grandfather Mohammed

Ghouseddin, was the owner and pattedar of land admeasuring

Ac.16-09 guntas in Sy.No.Dhakla No.449 situated at Raviryal Village,

Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and he had instituted

a suit vide O.S.No.133 of 1986 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the respondents herein for

declaration of title and recovery of possession of the said property. It

is further case of the petitioner that the said suit was decreed vide

judgment and decree dated 15.11.1996 declaring the grandfather of

the petitioner as title holder and granted relief of recovery of

possession and as no appeal was preferred, the said judgment and

decree attained finality. It is further case of the petitioner that

seeking execution of the said judgment and decree, E.P.No.103 of

2007 has been filed and the same was allowed on 19.04.2012.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed Civil Revision Petition

No.3685 of 2012 on the file of this Court and the same was

dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2022. It is stated that legal

representatives of the original decree holders had filed

E.A.No.21/2023 in E.P.No.103/2007 seeking issuance of warrant for

delivery of possession through the Bailiff. Pending issuance of the

warrant, the said property was utilized by the respondents as Missile

Research Centre and as such E.A.No.21/2023 was opposed by the

respondents stating that in view of establishing the Missile Research

Centre, it is not possible to deliver the property and they are willing

to acquire the suit schedule property under the provisions of the

Land Acquisition Act and the said E.A was disposed of directing the

respondents to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of

suit schedule property vide orders dated 17.10.2023. The grievance

of the petitioner is that, even though the respondents filed a counter-

affidavit in E.A.No.21/2023 in E.P.No.103/2007, stating that it is not

possible to deliver the suit schedule land due to security reasons

since the land is in possession of the Ministry of Defence and is used

for Missile Research Operations and they are willing to initiate

proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for

short, "RFCTLARR Act"), till date, they have not initiated any action

to pay compensation for acquiring the subject land. Hence the writ

petition.

3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a detailed counter affidavit,

inter alia stating that the land admeasuring 4190 Acres in Sy.No.1,

situated at Imarat Kancha of Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, originally belonged to His Excellency

Highness (HEH) Nizam of Hyderabad and the same was acquired by

the State of Andhra Pradesh vide Gazette Notification No.425 dated

15.03.1956. It is further stated that the said land was allotted on

lease for the Defence Research and Development Organisation

(DRDO) initially for a period of three years and the same was

subsequently, extended for a period of 50 years. It is also stated in

the counter affidavit that a suit vide O.S.No.333/1986 was instituted

by the Mohammed Ghouseddin seeking declaration of title and

recovery of possession of land admeasuring Ac.16.19 gts and the

same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.06.1996 by

the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It is

further stated that seeking execution of the said judgment and

decree, the successors of the decree holder filed EP No.103 of 2007

and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.04.2012. Questioning

the same, the respondents filed CRP No.3685/2012 on the file of this

Court and the same was dismissed on 08.06.2022. It is further

stated that to resolve the disputes over the subject land, a meeting

was convened at DRDO Headquarters, New Delhi, on 16.01.2023

wherein they have taken a decision to address a letter to the Director

of Animal Husbandry & other concerned Departments of Telangana

Government to identify the exact location of suit land. It is further

stated in the counter affidavit that after identification of the land, the

Board of Officers for acquisition was ordered by the DRDO

headquarters vide Convening Order letter No.DCWE/07/34616/RCI/

CRP-3685 dated 23.03.2023 to take steps for acquisition of the lands

to the extent of Ac.16.19 gts in Sy.No.Dhakhala No.449 situated at

Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is

further stated that the respondents after verification of the available

records and after obtaining legal opinion have decided to acquire the

suit land as the same is under active utilization of the DRDO. It is

also stated that accordingly, the office of respondents has forwarded

the draft Board Proceedings to Defence Estates Office, Secunderabad

vide letter No.RCI/257/CRP No.3685/Wks dated 26.06.2023 and

06.12.2023 for their perusal and approval. Having stated that the

decision has been taken to acquire the land, the file has been

circulated to the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Southern

Command, Pune vide letter No.AP/249/HRG/II/DE dated

02.01.2024 to examine the case for filing an appeal against the

orders passed in CRP No.3685/2012 on the ground that the Ministry

of Defence is holding the land on lease and the State Government of

Telangana is the owner of the land. It is further stated in the counter

affidavit that in view of non-receipt of Clarification from the District

Collector, Ranga Reddy District, further action has not been initiated

for acquiring the lands.

4. Considered the submissions of Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana,

learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, for

the petitioner and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor

General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.3

and 4 and perused the record.

5. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and

possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.16.19 gts forming part of

Sy.No.Dhakla No.449 situated at Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is also his case that his

predecessor-in-interest has instituted a suit vide O.S.No.333 of 1986

on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession against the

respondents. After contest, the said suit was decreed vide judgment

and decree dated 15.11.1996. Thereafter the successors-in-interest

of the decree holder in O.S.No.333 of 1986 have filed E.P.No.103 of

2007 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District to execute the said judgment and decree. The Executing

Court, after considering the entire material has allowed E.P.No.103

of 2007 vide order dated 19.04.2012 directing the judgment

debtors/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to handover the possession

of the suit land within two months from the date of the order.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein filed a revision vide

CRP No.3685/2012 on the file of this Court mainly on the ground

that the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1996 passed in

O.S.No.333 of 1986 does not mention about the boundaries of

alleged extent claimed by the decree holders and as such execution

of warrant by the Advocate Commissioner does not arise. The

respondents also disputed the boundaries, extent and entitlement of

the decree holder in executing the decree. This Court after

considering the entire material and the gist of the history, has

dismissed the CRP No.3685/2012 vide order dated 08.06.2022

relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in

Pratibha Singh and Another v. Shanti Devi Prasad and

another 1. The respondents have not disputed the institution of the

suit and orders passed by the Executing Court for delivery of the

2003 (2) SCC 330

possession. In fact, in Para 6(xv) of the counter affidavit, the

respondents have stated that it was decided to acquire the suit land

as the same is under active utilization by the DRDO. The judgment

and decree passed in O.S.No.333/1986 has attained finality as no

appeal was preferred. Having allowed the said judgment to attain

finality in execution proceedings, the respondents cannot question

the validity of said judgment. The respondents with a mala fide

intention to protract the litigation on one pretext or other and to

deny the rightful claim of the petitioner has stated in the counter

affidavit the lands in possession of the respondents were secured on

lease and the State Government is owner of the property and

clarification is required from the concerned District Collector.

Admittedly, the State Government represented by the Chief Secretary

is party defendant in O.S.No.333/1986. The State Government has

not filed any appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

15.11.1996. In the teeth of the above information revealed from the

record, the respondents are not entitled to deny the claim of the

petitioner and they are bound to pay the compensation to the decree

holders in O.S.No.333/1986, as it is settled law that the public

authorities have to exercise and discharge functions strictly in

accordance with the provisions of the statute, under which they

derive the power. The respondents are not having power to deprive

the citizen's right to immovable property without following the due

procedure. If public authorities acquire land without following the

procedure contemplated under law, such an action would be ex facie

violative of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, as it is

well settled in a catena of judgments that the right to property is a

valuable constitutional right, even though it does not form part of the

basic structure of the Constitution.

6. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur

Chennai 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with forcible

dispossession of the citizen from his property, observed as under:

"6. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid."

7. In Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh 3, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court while dealing with acquiring property of the citizen

without following the procedure, observed as under:

"13. In the present case, the appellant being an illiterate person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The appellant has been divested of her right to property without

(2005) 7 SCC 627

(2020) 2 SCC 569

being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law. We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, and direct the State to pay compensation to the appellant."

8. It emerges from the above judgments that the State does not

have the power to deprive a citizen of immovable property without

following the procedure contemplated by law. If such an action

constitutes a mala fide exercise of power, this Court can grant

appropriate reliefs, including damages or compensation, holding the

State liable for the constitutional tort of illegal or unlawful

deprivation of property.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed,

directing the respondents to initiate and conclude the land

acquisition proceedings in respect of the suit schedule land in

O.S.No.333 of 1986 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District, within a period of four (04) months from today