Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1763 (TS)

P. Janaki Rao v. State of A. P.

2025-12-09

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
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. WRIT PETITION No. 36401 OF 2024 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.15.00 guntas in Sy.No.9/1, situated at Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioners. 4. The case of the petitioners was that the petitioner's great-grandfather was granted 60 acres of land by the Nizam State in Sy.No.9/1, located in Saroornagar Village. The petitioner's grandfather sold 45 acres of this land in 1968 to one P.V.Hanumantha Rao, keeping the remaining 15 acres for himself. Their grandfather was issued an Occupancy Rights Certificate for the 15 acres under the AP (TA) Abolition of Inam Act, 1955. Subsequently, the said Occupancy Rights Certificate was set aside by the Collector, R.R. District vide order dated 01.04.1988 on appeal and the order of the Collector, R.R. District. Cancelling the Occupancy Rights Certificate was challenged in W.P.No.7520/1988 and W.P.No.2449/1988 and the said Writ Petitions were disposed by order dated 31.12.1991 in W.P.No.2449/1988 directing the State to implement the order of Board of Revenue in B1/3034/73 dated 06.08.1974 in favour of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the State Government filed L.G.C.No.1/1988 on the file of the Special Court under Section 8 of A.P.L.G. (P) Act, 1982 in respect of Ac.60-00 in Sy.No.9/1, Saroornagar Village claiming it as Government land against their grandfather and another L.G.C.No.39/1988 was filed against others. It is further submitted that the State Government filed L.G.C.No.1/1988 on the file of the Special Court under Section 8 of A.P.L.G. (P) Act, 1982 in respect of Ac.60-00 in Sy.No.9/1, 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.1/1988 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.9/1 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 30.07.1992 passed L.G.C.No.1/1988, 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.10074/1992, W.P.No.10075/1992 and W.P.No.10076/1992. The erstwhile High Court of A.P., by common judgment dated 18.09.1996 along with W.A.No.284/1992 filed by the State Government questioning the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate, disposed of all the above matters by setting aside the Judgment of the Special Court in L.G.C.No.1/1988 and L.G.C.No.39/1988 with a categorical finding that the petitioners are not land grabbers and that the order will not bar the authorities from acquiring the land for public purpose. Against the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the State Government preferred Appeal (Civil) No.8601-8605 of 1997 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal on 14.10.2003. 5. It is further submitted that the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal on the representation on 08.11.2007 as well as in pursuance of the orders of the Apex Court and instructions of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District in B/1689/2006 dated 15.11.2007, directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor of Saroornagar to handover the possession of the land to the L.Rs. of Late Ghulam Ahmed on 12.01.2008. The then M.R.O., Saroornagar symbolically on 12.01.2008 under cover of Panchanama handed over under two spells i.e. Ac.8-00 gts., of vacant land and Ac. of Late Ghulam Ahmed on 12.01.2008. The then M.R.O., Saroornagar symbolically on 12.01.2008 under cover of Panchanama handed over under two spells i.e. Ac.8-00 gts., of vacant land and Ac. 7-00 gnts., 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/2219/2004 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 pendency of the cases. In the meanwhile third parties occupied the subject land and that the State Government listed the subject property in the prohibitory properties list i.e., as Government land in Section 22-A Register. As a consequence, the petitioners are not allowed to alienate the property. As such they filed Writ Petition No.9934/2023 on the file of this Hon'ble High Court and the same is pending. Petitioners further submitted that on the representation of their G.P.A. Holder, the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division gave a report on 29.12.2023 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District stating that the subject land was in the occupation of the third parties and houses were constructed and it was still recorded as Government land and kept in prohibitory list and no transactions were possible. Hence the petitioners were deprived of enjoying their property at the fault of the State Government only. In spite of repeated requests and representations being made by the petitioners herein there is no positive action from the official respondents. 8. Hence the petitioners were deprived of enjoying their property at the fault of the State Government only. In spite of repeated requests and representations being made by the petitioners herein there is no positive action from the official respondents. 8. Hence the present writ petition 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.15.00 guntas in Sy.No.9/1, situated at Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioners. WRIT PETITION No.10990 OF 2011: 9. 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 petitioners by name Sri P.V.Hanumantha Rao originally purchased Ac.45-00 gts of land in Sy.No.9/1 under registered sale deed dated 23.4.1968 from its original owner Gulam Ahmed, which forms part of Ac. 295-18 Gts. in Sy.No. 9/1. Thereafter, their father was conferred occupancy right certificate to the said land under the provisions of A.P.(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act of 1955 to the said land. 11. It is further submitted that the Respondents (Government) filed LGC No.1/1988 and LGC No.39/1988, against their father and others. Their father P.V. Hanumantha Rao also filed LGC No. 20/1988 against the Government for recovery of possession before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act of 1982. The said LGC Applications were disposed off by a common judgment, dated 30.7.1992 by the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, allowing LGC No.1 of 1988 and LGC No.39 of 1988, while dismissing LGC No.20/88. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners carried the matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.10076 of 1992; 10074 of 1992; and 10075 of 1992 respectively. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners carried the matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.10076 of 1992; 10074 of 1992; and 10075 of 1992 respectively. The Hon'ble High Court, by common judgment, dated 18.9.1996 along with Writ Appeal No.284 of 1992 filed by the Govt., questioning grant of O.R.C. in favour of their father, disposed off setting aside the judgment of the Special Court in LGC No.1 of 1988 and LGC No.39 of 1988, and allowed the LGC No.20 of 1988 filed by the father of the petitioners herein, upholding the title of their father. The said judgment, dated 18.9.1996 was confirmed by the Apex 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 4 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 4 th 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 Special Court by order, dated 24.3.2006, while recording the said proposal, has directed to expedite the matter. 12. It is further submitted that since then the petitioners have been making representations to the Government from 04.7.2008 onwards, requesting to expedite the matter to hand over possession of land of Ac.45-00 Gts. in Sy.No.9/1 of Saroornagar Village, or, in alternative, to identify an equally valuable Government land in consultation with the Petitioners and to hand over such land with absolute rights. in Sy.No.9/1 of Saroornagar Village, or, in alternative, to identify an equally valuable Government land in consultation with the Petitioners and to hand over such land with absolute rights. Pursuant to the said representation, which was addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, some alternative lands were proposed by the Authorities at lower level to the 3 rd Respondent/Collector, Ranga Reddy District, through letters, dated 06.02.2009, 11.02.2009 and thereafter, the 3 rd Respondent sent reports to the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue), stating that, the land identified at Budvel Village is under possession of HUDA, through letter, dated 18.2.2009. 13. It is further submitted that thereafter the petitioners have made a representation to the 2 nd Respondent on 19.01.2010, and 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 identify 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 29.01.2010, have failed to provide any alternative land, though they are under legal obligation to identify 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. 14. 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 late P.V. Hanumantha Rao, the writ petitioners herein, vide Memo No.B/1689/07, dated 13.02.2008. Accordingly the Mandal Revenue Inspector handed over possession of the land to an extent of Ac.45.00 gts to the third writ petitioner on 24.10.2008 under cover of panchanama. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioners that the orders of the Special Court, High Court and the Apex Court are not implemented is incorrect and that the claim that only Ac.5-30 gts was handed over is also not correct. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioners that the orders of the Special Court, High Court and the Apex Court are not implemented is incorrect and that the claim that only Ac.5-30 gts was handed over is also not correct. It is further submitted that the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, vide its Order dated 03.9.2007 has specifically directed to restore the possession of the land as was existing on 01.8.1992 i.e. the date on which the MRO claimed to have taken possession by conducting panchanama. In accordance with the said directions, possession was given to the petitioner No.3 herein who accepted the same on 24.10.2008. Therefore, the subsequent claim made by the petitioners for alternative land does not arise. The possession of the land has been delivered in tune with the directions of the Special Court. Therefore, the petitioners now cannot turn around with the plea as claimed in the writ petition. The claim of the petitioners herein for 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 since 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 it 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.36401 of 2024. The father of the petitioners in W.P.No.36401 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 set aside the orders of the Special Court. The appeal filed by the Government in the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed and the same attained finality. The said order was challenged before the High Court and after hearing all the parties the High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the orders of the Special Court. The appeal filed by the Government in the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed and the same attained finality. In the process, after the LGC Court declared the petitioners as the land grabbers, the official respondents had taken over the property in question which was subsequently encroached by encroachers and necessary pattas were also given to the encroachers and civic amenities like roads, electricity infrastructure was provided. After a prolonged litigation and after the petitioners being declared as title holders and not land grabbers by the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners in both the writ petitions became entitled for re-possession of the land in Sy.No.9/1, located in Saroornagar Village. As no action 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 petitioners in both the writ petitions are the title holders in respect of their respective holdings. So their rights are crystallized by virtue of the judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that view of the 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 courts, 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 2009 dated 01.07.2019 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. 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 land would be identified outside Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy districts and would be allocated to the petitioners. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions accepted the proposal made by the learned Government Pleader and would seek to direct the official respondents to allocate some other land to the petitioners in lieu of non-availability of land either in Hyderabad or in Ranga Reddy, but it should be equivalent to the value of the extent of the land, which the petitioners are entitled to. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of H.P. (2020) 2 SCC 569 held as follows: 10.1. The Appellant was forcibly expropriated of her property in 1967, when the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to private property, which could not be deprived without due process of law and upon just and fair compensation. 10.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right Under Article 300A of the Constitution. Article 300A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300A, can be inferred in that Article. 10.4 In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517 , this Court held that: 21. If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300-A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed. Article 300-A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300-A 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 compensation on the same terms as awarded by the Reference Court vide Order dated 07.07.2015 in Anakh Singh's case (i.e. Land Reference No. 1 of 2011 RBT No. 01/13) alongwith all statutory benefits including solatium, interest, etc. within a period of 8 weeks, treating it as a case of deemed acquisition. An Affidavit of compliance is directed to be filed by the State before this Court within 10 weeks. 21. 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 identify appropriate land with mutual consent, without any encumbrances in lieu of extent of the land belonging to the petitioners in view of the rights 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 accordance with law for allocating the same to the petitioners and complete the entire exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the absence of which, petitioners are entitled to the just compensation to be determined in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, also known as the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and accordingly the respondents shall take appropriate steps, in accordance with law. 22. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these two writ petitions shall stand disposed of.