Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 652 (TS)

Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin v. Union of India

2024-09-04

C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

body2024
ORDER : (C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J.) : 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. 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 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. 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, 2003 (2) SCC 330 . The respondents have not disputed the institution of the suit and orders passed by the Executing Court for delivery of the possession. The respondents have not disputed the institution of the suit and orders passed by the Executing Court for delivery of the 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, (2005) 7 SCC 627 , 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. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chennai, (2005) 7 SCC 627 , 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, (2020) 2 SCC 569 , 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 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. 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 and to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the petitioner within a period of eight(8) weeks from today, towards damages for depriving the petitioner of the right to enjoy the property for more than 25 years from the date of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.333/1986, i.e., 15.11.1996. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.