ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 2. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned proceedings bearing No.B/1771/2000 dated 26.02.2008 issued by 3rd respondent in resuming the land to an extent of Ac.9-00 guntas situated in Sy.No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred as ‘subject land’) from the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice, Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and without jurisdiction, with a consequential prayer to set-aside the said impugned proceedings. BRIEF HISTORY: 3. Prior to 1971, all the activities related to the Construction and Management of the International and Domestic Air port, Air Traffic control and Air Space Management were controlled by the Director General Civil Aviation. The International Airport Authority of India (for short ‘IAAI’) was constituted as an autonomous body under the International Airport Authority Act, 1971. Further, the National Airports Authority (NAA) was constituted under the provisions of National Airports Authority Act, 1985. In the year 1994 to provide a closer integration of the management of the Airports and Aircraft services in the country, the Airport Authority of India Bill, 1993 was passed by both the Houses of Parliament which received the assent of The President on 12th September, 1994. The Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as (“AAI”) has come into force by repealing the International Airports Authority of India Act, 1971 and the National Airports Authority Act, 1985 and constituted a single unified Airports Authority of India to control and manage both the National and International Airports in the country and the undertakings of both the International Airports Authority of India and National Airports Authority vested in the said Airports Authority of India. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh alienated the subject land in favour of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India in the year 1966- 67, since then the said land was in possession of the Ministry of Civil Aviation from the year 1966-67. The said land was acquired by the Central Government for the purpose of operating a Radio Navigational Aid (V.O.R). The said land was acquired by the Central Government for the purpose of operating a Radio Navigational Aid (V.O.R). Accordingly, VOR facility was installed and was commissioned in 1971 and that an area measuring 305 meters around VOR facility has to be kept free of obstructions. 5. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 11.10.1988 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherilingampally and letters dated 20.07.1989, 25.08.1989 and 29.12.1989 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a request to send original sale deed in which the subject property was allotted to the Airport Authority of India as the said document was misplaced with the petitioner but, there was no response from them. Again a letter dated 08.03.1990 was addressed to the M.R.O.Sherilingampally wherein it was brought to his notice that the land to an extent of Ac.8.9 is the most ideal place to locate a radio navigational aid for assisting air craft for reroute flying and also for making a safe landing from the west and that the land alienated in the year 1966-67 was fully utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired and a reply was also given to the letter dated 24.02.1990 issued by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 6. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department vide letter No.035217/Assgn.III (3)/91, dated 26.04.1991 issued memo to the petitioner to show cause within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the memo as to why the unutilized extent of Ac.9.00 in Sy.No.26, Gachibowli Village shall not be resumed for failure to utilize the land. The petitioner vide letter dated 25.06.1991 replied to the show cause notice explaining how the land was utilized and further submitted that details were immediately not available with the petitioner as the alienation was made in favour of Central Government i.e., the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India in the year 1966-67. The Mandal Revenue Officer even after several requests had not supplied the copy of the alienation deed and the petitioner finally requested 1st respondent to drop further action keeping in view of the fact that the VOR facility is extremely important for safety of aircraft operations. The Mandal Revenue Officer even after several requests had not supplied the copy of the alienation deed and the petitioner finally requested 1st respondent to drop further action keeping in view of the fact that the VOR facility is extremely important for safety of aircraft operations. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 28.06.2000 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherilingampally to furnish copy of allotment orders and sub-division sketch allotted for VOR station of AAI in Sy.No.26 of Kanche Gachi Bowli (v) and by letter dated 10.05.2006 requested to survey the subject land to ascertain petitioner’s actual possession of the land. Further, the Mandal Surveyor carried physical verification of the subject land on 28.09.2006 and the petitioner vide letter dated 02.04.2007 requested the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue the combined revenue map duly demarcating the subject land and the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 31.05.2007 addressed to the petitioner informing that the Mandal Surveyor of his office has demarcated the subject land in which the petitioner was in physical possession with constructed compound wall. Thereafter, 3 rd respondent vide proceedings dated 09.01.2008 passed orders for resumption of un-utilized subject land lying vacant which was allotted to the petitioner and directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Serilingampally to resume the above land from the petitioner under cover of panchanama and ordered for compliance. The petitioner vide letter dated 16.01.2008 informed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad all the said facts and brought to their notice that the petitioner proposed to construct 350 residential quarters for its employees to be deployed at Shamshabad Airport with effect from March, 2008. It is further submitted that the respondents without following due process of law had broken the lock put by the petitioner to the Gate and defaced the sign board of the petitioner which was erected near compound wall. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.1525 of 2008 questioning the order dated 09.01.2008 of 3 rd respondent and this Court vide order dated 31.10.2008 allowed the writ petition and while setting aside the impugned order of 3rd respondent dated 09.01.2008, kept it open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.1525 of 2008 questioning the order dated 09.01.2008 of 3 rd respondent and this Court vide order dated 31.10.2008 allowed the writ petition and while setting aside the impugned order of 3rd respondent dated 09.01.2008, kept it open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent issued notice No.B/1771/2000 dated 08.02.2008 alleging that the subject land is found vacant and lying idle and proposed to resume the vacant land for public purpose and in response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 15.02.2008 and replied that the said land was alienated to the erstwhile Civil Aviation Department in the year 1966-67 for the purpose of installation of radio navigational equipment (VOR) on the land and the said NAV- AIDS was functional and operative on the subject land since 1971 for air safety operations and that even till date VOR buildings including pump house are existing in the said land and as per the revenue records pertaining to the subject land reveals that the subject land, was acquired/allotted in the name of the Civil Aviation Department and the land is properly demarcated and surrounded by AAI compound wall and it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the contention in the said notice dated 08.02.20085 that the land is found vacant and idle as incorrect and requested 3rd respondent to grant two weeks time for filing detailed reply after obtaining a conveyance deed from the Government regarding the said land. Thereafter, petitioner addressed a letter to 1 st respondent dated 21.02.2008 with a request to serve a copy of the alienation deed for the subject land with an intention that the said document is to be furnished to the 3rd respondent and a specific request was made in the said letter that the petitioner asked the said alienation deed under right to information Act by paying the requisite fee. The petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated 25.02.2008 to the Special Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh (infrastructure and investment department) with a request to advise State officials not to occupy Ac.9-00 of land at Gachibowli which was allotted to the Airport Authority of India and further addressed a letter dated 28.02.2008 to 3 rd respondent with a request to grant two more weeks for filing a detailed reply to the show cause notice since the conveyance deed is not served on the petitioner. The, 3 rd respondent received the letter of the petitioner on 28.02.2008 itself and issued the present impugned proceedings by putting ante date i.e., 26.02.2008 and the same was served on the petitioner on 29.02.2008. In the impugned order, it was submitted that Airport Authority of India failed to produce any documentary proof about the alienation and the land is very valuable and required for public purpose and that the Airport Authority of India has failed to show the usage of the land for which it was given possession. The 3rd respondent without considering the averments made in the reply to the show cause notice and simply in a routine manner passed the present impugned order ordering for resumption of un-utilized land (subject land) from the Airport Authority of India (Civil Aviation Department). It is further submitted that the respondents ought to have seen that the petitioner addressed letters on 11.10.1998, 08.03.1990 and 28.08.1989 intimating that the land in Sy.No.26 of Gachibowli village is under the occupation of Aeronautical Communications Station, Civil Aviation Department from where the navigation aid to the air crafts is provided and requested to serve a copy of the conveyance deed and even though all these letters were received by them long ago, but there was no denial from their side about the alienation and possession of the land by the Air Ports Authority of India. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent ought to have given notice to the Central Government while seeking for resumption. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent ought to have given notice to the Central Government while seeking for resumption. It is further submitted that neither the District Collector nor the Tahsildar is conferred with such power to pass adverse order against the petitioner and that the respondents ought to have seen that the State Government headed by the respondents should not be dragged with the Public Sector Undertakings of the Union of India in the courts and that the petitioner being an organ of (Civil Aviation Department), Government of India and the alienation of the said land in favour of the petitioner is final and irrevocable as such, there is no question of resuming the land. It is further submitted that even the proceedings of the Tahsildar show that there was a construction activity as per the records. It is further submitted that the respondents did not specify under what provision of law the show cause notice was issued and that the 3 rd respondent issued the present impugned order without providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, inspite of a specific request made to 3 rd respondent to grant two more weeks time for submission of a detailed explanation to the said show cause notice, after obtaining a conveyance deed from the 1st respondent. It is further submitted that inspite of receipt of all these letters addressed by the petitioner, 3rd respondent in a hurried manner passed the present impugned order which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and in view of the present impugned order, the entire developmental works including the construction of houses to employees of the Airport Authority of India was stalled inspite of spending huge amount for that purpose and that 3rd respondent at the behest of 2nd respondent is initiating coercive steps for taking physical possession of the land forcibly from the hands of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. This Court by order dated 18.03.2008 passed the following order: “Rule nisi. Call for records. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice for the respondents and seeks time to file counter/get instructions. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. This Court by order dated 18.03.2008 passed the following order: “Rule nisi. Call for records. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice for the respondents and seeks time to file counter/get instructions. W.P.M.P.No.7567 of 2008 The impugned order dated 26.02.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent, namely the Tahsildar (Deputy Collector Cadre), Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, resuming the land in an extent of Ac.9-00 in Sy.No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, from the petitioner on the ground that the same has not be put to utilization and is kept vacant, prima facie, is without application of mind. It is seen from the material filed along with the writ petition, the petitioner has been in possession of the land for the last more than four decades and has also installed Navigation Control equipment on the land in question for the purpose of air safety operation. Since the land in question is being used by the petitioner and is not kept vacant as alleged in the impugned order, the petitioner has made out a case for suspension of the said order. Hence, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned order as prayed for. Notice.” 8. The respondent No.3 has filed counter on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and would submit that the subject land was in possession of Civil Aviation Department and as the land was kept un-utilized during the year 1990-91, the Government vide letter No.035217/Assignment-III(3)/91 dated 26.04.1991 has issued show cause notice informing that the subject land in possession of Airport Authority of India (Civil Aviation Department) remained un-utilized without any developments as such requested to show cause within a fortnight failing which the Government will take necessary action for resumption of said un-utilized land. As the Government lands in the vicinity of Serilingampally Mandal are very valuable and required for public purposes, it was proposed to resume the un-utilized Government lands allotted to the Organizations in the Mandal. Accordingly, as the subject land allotted to the Airport Authority of India (Civil Aviation Department) is vacant and un-utilized, the orders for resumption was issued by Thahsildar, Serilingampally vide proceedings No.B/1771/2000 dated 09.01.2008 and the land under cover of panchanama dated 10.01.2008 was resumed. Accordingly, as the subject land allotted to the Airport Authority of India (Civil Aviation Department) is vacant and un-utilized, the orders for resumption was issued by Thahsildar, Serilingampally vide proceedings No.B/1771/2000 dated 09.01.2008 and the land under cover of panchanama dated 10.01.2008 was resumed. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Director, Airport Authority of India has filed W.P.No.1525 of 2005 before the High Court and High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide its order dated 31.01.2008 allowed the said writ petition. 9. It is further submitted that pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.No.1525 of 2005, a notice was issued to the Director, Airport Authority of India on 08.02.2008 vide B/1771/2000, dated 08.02.2008 informing that the Airport Authority of India has not utilized the subject land and as per the records available there is no evidence of allotment or alienation of the land in favour of Airport Authority of India and as the land which was previously been in possession of Airport Authority of India, is required for public purpose, was decided to be resumed to Government Custody. Thereafter, in response to notice dated 08.02.2008, the Director, Airport Authority of India vide letter dated 15.02.2008 has sent reply which is self explanatory and informed that the land in question was acquired by Airport Authority of India (erstwhile Civil Aviation Department) by paying requisite compensation during the year 1966-67 and the said land has been used and under possession of AAI for the past (04) decades and the AAI installed Radio-Navigational Equipment on the land since 1971 for Air Safety operations and in order to facilitate the smooth functioning of Shamshabad Airport to be commissioned in March, 2008 and also to solve the acute housing problem of its employees, the AAI has started construction work of 350 Residential Quarters for its employees on the subject land at a cost of Rs.51 crores and hence, requested to revoke the action proposed under the notice. 10. 10. It is further submitted that the reply offered by the Director, Airport Authority of India was examined and found that there is no evidence filed in support of their statement showing that the land acquired by them by paying requisite compensation during the year 1966-67 and allotment orders issued in their favour by the Government and they have failed to show the usage of the land for which it was given possession and only after the action initiated for resumption of un-utilized vacant Government lands allotted to the organizations, the Director, AAI has taken a plea stating that the subject land will be used for construction of Residential Houses to solve the acute housing problem of its employees. 11. It is further submitted that the reply offered by the Director, AAI did not substantiate the reasons explained to the notice, despite the fact that the land in Sy.No.26 extent Ac.9-00 guntas was never allotted or alienated in favour of Airport Authority of India which is clearly evident from the correspondence done by the Organization with the Government i.e., requesting the Collector, Ranga Reddy District to transfer the land in their favour and that the said land was resumed under cover of panchanama dated 03.03.2008. 12. The Applicant/5 th respondent has filed W.P.M.P.No.26200 of 2008 in W.P.No.5813 of 2008 seeking their impleadment as 5 th respondent and stated that the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District was directed to resume the land from 1 st respondent/writ petitioner under a panchanama and in pursuance to the proceedings of Thahsildar, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, a panchanama was recorded on 10.01.2008 where the land was taken into possession by the Thahsildar, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District on behalf of the Government. Thereafter, by panchanama recorded on 25.01.2008, the land was handed over by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District on behalf of the Government. It is further submitted that pursuant to the said proceedings dated 26.02.2008, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District resumed possession of the land on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide panchanama dated 28.02.2008 and that the Applicant/5th respondent took possession on the strength of the panchanama dated 03.03.2008. The respondent No.1 filed counter to the implead petition W.P.M.P.No.26200 of 2008. 13. The respondent No.1 filed counter to the implead petition W.P.M.P.No.26200 of 2008. 13. This Court by order dated 21.06.2011 allowed the implead petition W.P.M.P.No.26220 of 2008 and thereby the applicant was impleaded as respondent No.5 in W.P.No.5813 of 2008. 14. The writ petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter filed by the respondent No.3 and submitted that it is not disputed and that it was specifically admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the Airports Authority of India (AAI) (erstwhile Civil Aviation Department of Government of India) was in physical possession of the subject land from the year 1966-67 and that the petitioner installed Radio-Navigational Equipment (VOR) on the said land and also constructed building which has been used for Aviation related purposes and from the year 1971 onwards, Radio- Navigational Aids are functional and operative for Safety Operations and boundary wall was constructed surrounding the subject land and a gate was erected to protect the subject land from encroachment and a Signboard showing name of the petitioner was put up to indicate petitioner’s possession of the said property. Referring to the earlier correspondence, wherein the petitioner requested the respondents under Right to Information Act, 2005 to supply a copy of the Alienation Order in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner, as the said document was misplaced by the Authorities, but neither the Respondents have denied the alienation of the said land nor supplied copy of the same to the petitioner. It is submitted that to the show cause notice dated 26.04.1991 issued to the petitioner by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, the petitioner submitted that the subject land has been in physical possession of the petitioner for the last more than (6) decades and it is extremely important for VOR facility for safety operations of the Aircraft and therefore, it may not be in the interest of Air Safety to withdraw such a facility and eventually requested the Government to drop resumption proceedings. Thereafter, there was no response from the respondents which gave an impression to the petitioner that the resumption issue in respect of the subject land was dropped at the Government level and petitioner continuously requested 3 rd respondent, vide letters dated 28.03.2000 and 28.06.2000 etc to supply a copy of the allotment alienation order of the said land along with a copy of sub-division sketch of the subject land, in response to which, the Thahildar/3 rd respondent by letter dated 31.05.2007 informed to the petitioner stating that the Mandal Surveyor has demarcated the land in Sy.No.26 to an extent of Ac.9- 00 guntas situated at Kancha-Gachibowli Village, which is in physical possession of the Airports Authority of India/petitioner and also sent location sketch prepared by the Mandal Surveyor. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 16.01.2008 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and requested him to intervene and do the needful in the matter. It is further submitted that even though the order dated 18.03.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.7567 of 2008 in W.P. No.5813 of 2008 was communicated by Telegram to all the respondents, yet at the instance of the 3 rd respondent, Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board, made a false complaint to the S.H.O.Chandanagar P.S and alleged that petitioner illegally entered into the subject land and tried to damage its sign board. In the said circumstances, a legal notice dated 11.04.2008 was sent to the Thahsildar/3 rd respondent as well as to the Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board and informed them that the petitioner is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the subject land to an extent of Ac.9-00 guntas since last six (6) decades. After receipt of the said notice, dated 11.04.2008, neither the Thahsildar nor the Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board and no other Authority interfered with possession and enjoyment of subject land. 15. It is further submitted that earlier the Airport Director, National Airports Authority dated 25.06.1991 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, the relevant portion is extracted for reference: “the subject land in Sy.No.26 extent Ac.8.9 guntas was acquired by the Central Government (Civil Aviation Department) for the purpose of operating a Radio Navigational Aid, which was installed and commissioned in the year 1971 and the said land was used for that purpose, and a copy of the Gazette Notification issued in the month of March, 1988 by the Govt. of India for installation of Radio Navigational Aid was also enclosed to prove that the obstruction clearances have been specified by the Govt. of India. It was also pointed out in the said letter dt. 26.06.1991 that it can be seen that an area admeasuring 305 meters around VOR facility has to be kept free of obstructions and thus, non-construction in the area in question, is intentional and it is also a technical requirement for such a facility to ensure its optimal performance to achieve ultimate aim of safety of aircraft operations. It was also specifically pointed out in the said letter dt. 25.06.1991 that the subject land was alienated in favour of the Central Government in the year 1966-67, that in case of any such resumption the same has to be referred to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India, who is the lawful owner of the subject in as much as the details of the alienation were not immediately available with the Petitioner on account of different Organizations in the Govt. of India have handled the records at different times and the efforts made by the Petitioner with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingamaplly Mandal to obtain a copy of the alienation order could not be fructified and therefore, re-iterated its request to the Principal Secretary to Govt., to supply a copy of the alienation deed immediately to take further action in the matter. The Petitioner has also pointed out that VOR facility is extremely important for safety of aircraft operations and it may not be in the interest off air safety to withdraw such a facility without proper coordination with all the concerned agencies and there was correspondence thereafter and thus given an impression that the issue was closed at the Govt. level.” 16. It is further submitted that without reference to any of the above said correspondence, the 3 rd respondent issued proceedings dated 09.01.2008 and directed resumption of the subject land unilaterally. 17. It is further submitted that since the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2008 of 3 rd respondent is suspended by this Court by a speaking order dated 18.03.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.7567 of 2008 in W.P.No.5813 of 2008, which is in force as on date, the question of resumption of the said land does not arise and that the petitioner is in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land even as on date. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land was alienated in favour of Civil Aviation Department in the year 1966-67 and compensation was paid by C.W.D (Department) on behalf of Airports Authority of India (Civil Aviation Department) and V.O.R facility was installed and once the show cause notice was issued in the year 1991, a reply was given to the Government on 26.04.1991, as such the M.R.O has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceedings with undue haste. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that it is no where disputed that the land has been alienated to the Civil Aviation Department on the other hand it was specifically admitted as such the allegations are factually incorrect and as on today the subject land is in the physical possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit the effect of suspension by virtue of interim order dated 18.03.2008 and any further proceedings would be a nullity and in support of his case relied on a decision of Division Bench of this Court between K. VENKATESHWAR RAO V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS , 2011 (6) ALD 463 (DB) wherein it is held that when the impugned Order is suspended, it is temporarily wiped out and does not exist in the eye of law. The relevant paragraph No.9, is extracted hereunder: “There is conceptual difference between the order of suspension and the order of stay granted by a competent Court or Tribunal exercising appellate/review jurisdiction. When an order of suspension is passed, temporarily the order is wiped out and does not exist in the eye of law. If the order of suspension is interlocutory in nature, its survival depends on the final adjudication. If such order is reversed or set aside, it would be ineffective from the date when it was suspended as an interim measure. In case the adjudication is one of confirmation, the order which is suspended, though inoperative during the period of operation of the order of suspension passed by the Court, would stand revived only from the date of the final order of the Court affirming the same. In case the adjudication is one of confirmation, the order which is suspended, though inoperative during the period of operation of the order of suspension passed by the Court, would stand revived only from the date of the final order of the Court affirming the same. The order of stay only means the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the order has been wiped out from existence. An order of stay granted pending disposal of a writ petition or other proceeding, comes to an end with the dismissal of the substantive proceeding and it is the duty of the Court in such a case to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim orders of the Court”. 20. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that in the panchanama proceedings notice was not issued to the petitioner and he is not aware whether the possession has been taken and submits that there are no mutation proceedings in favour of respondent No.5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated the contents of the counter but could not place any record in support of his submissions. 21. Heard both the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS: 22. Earlier this Court by an order dated 31.07.2008 in W.P.No.1525 of 2008 had set-aside the order of the 4 th respondent therein dated 09.01.2008 and allowed the writ petition and kept it open for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The operative portion of the said order is extracted for reference: “Admittedly, after lapse of 17 years of the said notice, dated 26-04-1991, the 4 th respondent passed the resumption order through impugned proceedings, dated 09- 01-2008, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 25-06-1991, stating that the petitioner has not filed any reply pursuant to the notice dated 26-04-1991, and the land in question is required for public purpose. Further, the resumption order has been passed by the 4th respondent on 09-01-2008 whereas the notice had been issued by the 1 st respondent on 26-04-1991. As a matter of fact, the 4 th respondent has not considered the explanation filed by the petitioner on 25-0-1991. Further, the resumption order has been passed by the 4th respondent on 09-01-2008 whereas the notice had been issued by the 1 st respondent on 26-04-1991. As a matter of fact, the 4 th respondent has not considered the explanation filed by the petitioner on 25-0-1991. In fact, the 4th respondent, who passed the resumption order has not issued notice dated 26-04-1991. Therefore, the 4 th respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 25-06-1991 and without taking into account the present status of the land in question, passed the resumption order, dated 09-01-2008. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the 4 th respondent passed the impugned order without following the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of the 4th respondent, dated 09-01-2008, and keeping it open for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law.” 23. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 by letter dated 08.02.2008 called upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the un- utilized subject land within one week and, the petitioner by letter dated 15.02.2008 (Exhibit P-16) requested the Thahsildar (Deputy Collector Cadre), Serilingamaplly Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad for the reasons mentioned therein to grant two weeks time to submit reply to the said notice. In the said letter, it was informed that the revenue records pertaining to the subject land reveals that the said land was acquired/allotted in the name of the Civil Aviation Department and on a perusal of that letter shows that a copy of revenue record was also enclosed along with letter as Annexure-A. 24. It is pertinent to note that in the counter filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4, it appears that there are three panchanamas annexed i.e., panchanama dated 25.01.2008, 28.02.2008 and 03.03.2008. In the aforesaid three panchanamas, on the three occasions three different panchas were assigned and no notice was given to the petitioner before taking the physical possession of the subject land. It is also pertinent to note that the resumption orders vide proceedings No.B1/1771/2000 dated 09.01.2008 of the 3 rd respondent were set-aside by this Court in W.P.No.1525 of 2008 vide order dated 31.01.2008. It is also pertinent to note that the resumption orders vide proceedings No.B1/1771/2000 dated 09.01.2008 of the 3 rd respondent were set-aside by this Court in W.P.No.1525 of 2008 vide order dated 31.01.2008. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2008 were passed bearing same proceeding No.B1/1771/2000 and consequently, 2 nd panchanama was recorded on 28.02.2008 filed along with counter affidavit. This Court by order dated 18.03.2008 suspended the impugned order dated 26.02.2008 passed by the 3 rd respondent. Thereafter, another panchanama dated 03.03.2008 was recorded showing that the physical possession of the land was handed over to the Mandal Revenue Inspector and physical possession was taken over by one G. Venkat Rama Raju (Deputy Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board). In the counter filed by respondent No.4, there is no reference pertaining to 2nd panchanama dated 28.02.2008 and whereas it was submitted that the land was resumed vide proceedings dated 26.02.2008 under cover of panchanama dated 03.03.2008. The respondent No.4 has recorded panchanama two times on the impugned order dated 26.02.2008 and was silent about the panchanama proceedings dated 28.02.2008. Even in the implead petition filed by the respondent No.5, the implead petitioner submitted that subsequent to the proceedings dated 26.02.2008, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District resumed the land on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh by panchanama dated 28.02.2008. Subsequently, the said Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District on behalf of the Government given physical possession of the land to the 5 th respondent (A.P.Housing Board) under panchanama dated 03.03.2008. The entire resumption proceedings were made without putting notice to the petitioner. 25. On the issue of procedure to be followed while recording panchanama, this Court in W.P. No. 11293 of 2009 filed by M/s. A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs. Thahsildar and W.P. No. 23477 of 2010 filed by M/s. E.C.E. Industries Limited Vs. The Special Officer and Competent Authority passed common order dated 03.11.2022 wherein W.P.No.23477 of 2010 was filed aggrieved by the panchanama proceedings wherein the respondent authorities were allegedly taking over the possession of the land and attempting to physically dispossess the petitioner, even after repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. In the said order, this Court meticulously examined the procedure to be adopted during the panchanama proceedings while taking over possession of any land. The relevant paragraphs are extracted for reference: “22. In the said order, this Court meticulously examined the procedure to be adopted during the panchanama proceedings while taking over possession of any land. The relevant paragraphs are extracted for reference: “22. Even though the word ‘Panchanama’ is not defined anywhere in law, the Courts, lawyers and the litigant public are well aware of the term panchanama and its significance, more so, in civil and criminal litigations. The panchanama is the document, which is prepared at the subject site in the presence of 3 to 5 persons who are not only independent persons but also well respected in the locality of the subject property. The panchanama is prepared in their presence usually noting down as to why they were called or the purpose for which the panchanama is prepared, recording the events that have taken place in their presence. Usually, the name, address, age and occupation of the panchas is noted down in the panchanama besides noting the date and time and place where the panchanama is prepared and also the purpose for which the panchanama is prepared, what action has been taken. The panchanama will be prepared in the presence of the owners/possessors of the subject site and the panchas. Usually, the panchanama will be accompanied by a site plan, which is prepared either by the person writing the panchanama or by a competent surveyor, who after surveying, demarcating and measuring the land in question will prepare a rough sketch indicating the subject land in the site plan annexed to the panchanama. After the preparation of both the panchanama and the site plan, the panchas will be read over the contents of the panchanama and the endorsement or signature of the panchas will be taken both on the panchanama and also on the site plan prepared. The person who has prepared the panchanama and site plan will also sign both the documents, so also the signature of the owner/possessor will also be taken on both the documents. The panchanama records what the panchas have seen/observed, the action taken. The primary intention behind the preparation of the panchanama is to safeguard against possible tricks and unfair dealings on the part of the officers, who may indulge in malpractices. The panchanama records what the panchas have seen/observed, the action taken. The primary intention behind the preparation of the panchanama is to safeguard against possible tricks and unfair dealings on the part of the officers, who may indulge in malpractices. In Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra , [CDJ 2013 SC 230] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that Panchanama is a document having legal bearings which records evidence and findings that an officer makes at the scene of an offence/crime. However, it is not only the recordings of the scene of crime but also of anywhere else which may be related to the crime/offence and from where incriminating evidence is likely to be collected. The document so prepared needs to be signed by the investigating officer who prepares the same and at least by two independent and impartial witnesses called ‘Panchas’ so also by the concerned party. The witnesses are required to be not only impartial but also ‘respectable’. ‘Respectable’ here would mean a person who is not dis-reputed. Once should also check if the witnesses are in their senses at the time of panchanama proceedings. Only majors are to be taken as witnesses as minors witness may not withstand the legal scrutiny. 23. The above stated legal position makes it abundantly clear that whenever a panchanama is prepared, the same has to be done duly putting the actual owner/interested person on notice. That the panchas should be of reputed/respectable persons of the locality where the panchanama is being drafted. The date and time on which the panchanama is prepared and the name, age and address of the panchas should be mentioned in the said panchanama. After preparation of the panchanama, if it is prepared by other than one of the panchas, the same should be read over and explained to the panchas, and the signatures of the panchas, the person preparing the panchanama and also the land owner/interested person should be attested at the bottom of the panchanama.” 26. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4526-4527 of 2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court and the relevant paragraph concerning the panchanama procedure is extracted for reference: “45. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4526-4527 of 2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court and the relevant paragraph concerning the panchanama procedure is extracted for reference: “45. It was pointed out on behalf of the appellant herein that not only the factory is still running on the subject-land but there are multi-storeyed residential buildings also constructed therein. It was also pointed out that entire land is encompassed by a boundary wall and the gate is manned by security guard. It was also brought to our notice that the so called panchnama does not contain any site map or distinctive boundaries with special CA Nos. 4526-4527 of 2024 Page 132 of 145 divisions whatsoever. The entire extent of 1,63679 sq.mtrs. is bound by one compound wall. It seems that the Division Bench in its impugned judgment has observed that there is no requirement under the statute for obtaining the signature of the landowner in the panchnama or filing of the affidavits by the panchas. When State Authorities try to take law in their own hands by hook or crook and rely on bogus paper panchnamas for the purpose of asserting that actual physical possession was taken over before the date of the repeal, then it is imperative that the signature of the landowner must be obtained in the panchnama so as to attach sanctity and authenticity to such exercise of taking over of actual possession. Affidavits of the panchas would also attach great sanctity to the same.” 27. On a perusal of proceedings, dated 26.02.2008, the respondents admits that the land for an extent of Ac.9-00 guntas in Sy.No.26, Kancha Gachihowli Village, Serilingamapally Mandal, Rangareddy District is in possession of Civil Aviation Department (Airport Authority of India) and remained un-utilized. In the proceedings dated 26.02.2008, the respondent did not state which of those conditions of alienation were violated by the petitioner and under what provision of law the said un-utilized land has been proposed for resumption without any sanction from the Government. Yet another aspect to be noted is that the respondents without following the procedure contemplated under law had broken the lock put-up by the petitioner to the gate and de-faced the sign board erected near the compound wall. Yet another aspect to be noted is that the respondents without following the procedure contemplated under law had broken the lock put-up by the petitioner to the gate and de-faced the sign board erected near the compound wall. Even the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherilingampally by letter dated 24.02.1990 addressed to the petitioner has called for the extent of land utilized particulars referring to the Assistant Secretary (Assignment) CLR’s Office, A.P.Hyderabad and Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District spot inspection dated 22.02.1990, wherein it was observed that the land alienated in favour of the petitioner was left un-utilized and certain information was requested to be furnished. Even as per the correspondence between the Central P.W.D, Madras Central Division (North) a sum of Rs.8900/- was paid by C.P.W.D on behalf of the Civil Aviation Department, Government of India and acquired the land to an extent of Ac.8-90 guntas in Sy.No.26, Kancha Gachibowli village in the year 1966 for the construction of VOR station and the said VOR station was installed in the subject land in the year 1971 and the same was published by the Government of India in the Gazette Notification in March, 1988 and the subject land is used for Air Safety Operations, which has not been specifically denied in the counter. The said fact goes to show that the petitioner was very much in possession of the subject land. 28. Further, on a perusal of the letter dated 25.06.1991 addressed by petitioner to Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad it was specially informed that it will be necessary to refer the resumption question to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, who are the rightful owners of the land and that the details of the alienation are not immediately available with the petitioner as different organizations had been in possession of the records at different times and that furnishing of the alienation deed would enable the ministry of civil aviation to take a decision in this connection. The respondents by the impugned order seeks resumption of the un-utilized land, however submits that as per their records there is no evidence of allotment or alienation of the land in favour of the petitioner. In such a scenario, the respondents ought to have taken appropriate steps in accordance with law rather than issuing impugned notice wherein the petitioner was called for information regarding resumption of un-utilized land. In such a scenario, the respondents ought to have taken appropriate steps in accordance with law rather than issuing impugned notice wherein the petitioner was called for information regarding resumption of un-utilized land. 29. Yet another important aspect to be noted is that the respondents are the custodians of the records and in respect of the subject lands, no revenue record was filed by the respondents to show the status of the subject land and has only dealt with the request of the petitioner for furnishing a copy of the sale deed and instead of verifying/correlating with the revenue records and while admitting the possession of the petitioner, passed the impugned orders. The respondent No.3 is contradicting to their own records, and at this point of time cannot lay any claim on the subject property seeking resumption of the subject lands, which are in the possession of the petitioner. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioner at the time of panchanama proceedings and that no proceedings have been issued alienating the said land to the respondent No.5 and no document has been placed before the Court to that extent. 30. Earlier this Court by order dated 31.01.2008 in W.P.No.1525 of 2008 had set-aside the resumption proceedings dated 09.01.2008. Again the respondent No.4 issued Show Cause Notice dated 08.02.2008 on similar lines on the same subject property, as such considering the prima face, this Court by order dated 18.03.2008 has suspended the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2008. 31. The content of subject notice dated 08.02.2008 and the resumption orders dated 26.02.2008 vide proceedings No.B/1771/2000 directing petitioner to hand over possession of the subject land, without according any opportunity of hearing based on the earlier communications between the petitioner and respondents and without informing the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India is not only improper but also against the principles of natural justice and is contrary to the spirit of Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in W.P.No.1525 of 2008 and the entire panchanama proceedings are not in accordance to the common orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.11293 of 2009 and W.P.No.23477 of 2010 dated 03.11.2022 and confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4526-4527 of 2024. 32. 32. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 26.02.2008 seeking resumption of unutilized subject land from the petitioner is bereft of reasons, lacks jurisdiction and without any reference/intimation to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to principles of natural justice, Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and is hereby set-aside. 33. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.