Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(AP) 956

N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ., RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
M/s Bhiragacha Finance Company Private Limited - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 165, 167 & 216 of 2025
Decided On : 09-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A Chandra Shaker
For the Respondent: GP For Land Ceiling

Actual physical possession of surplus land must be established by cogent evidence to avoid abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act. Mere paper possession is insufficient, and mandatory procedural requirements for notification and service under the original statute must be strictly followed.

Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 10(5), 10(6) - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 - Rule 5 - Repeal Act, 1999 - Section 3(1)(a) - Possession of surplus land - Requirement of actual physical possession - Mere paper possession or notice issuance insufficient - Mandatory compliance with procedures for service and 30-day notice period - Necessity of establishing forceful or voluntary surrender before repeal. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 14, 24)

(B) Evidence - Panchanama - Validity of documentation - Necessity of signatures of landowners or identified witnesses - Documents prepared behind the back of parties deemed fabricated - Presumption of invalidity if procedural mandates regarding service and mandatory timeframes are violated. (Paras 16, 17, 21, 27)

Facts of the case:
Appellants challenged the land acquisition proceedings by the authorities under the legislation governing urban land ceilings. The state claimed to have taken possession of the surplus land through notice and panchanama procedures. The appellants argued that service of notice was defective, the statutory 30-day gap before taking possession was not maintained, and that the documents were fabricated post-repeal to claim possession and circumvent the abatement of proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the authorities failed to demonstrate valid service of notice as per statutory requirements. The panchanamas were found to be unsubstantiated and lacked essential details, including the signatures of occupants or reliable witnesses, suggesting they were prepared in isolation. The court held that without cogent evidence of actual physical possession taken prior to the enforcement of the repeal legislation, the proceedings must abate.

Issues: Whether the state effectively took over physical possession of the surplus land prior to the repeal of the Act, and whether the service of notices and the subsequent panchanama were procedurally sound and valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the state must establish actual, physical possession of the land through compelling evidence. Mere paper possession recorded in documents prepared internally or without the involvement/knowledge of the landholder is insufficient to save proceedings from abatement under the repeal act. Consistent with precedents, the failure to follow mandatory notice periods and service protocols renders the acquisition proceedings illegal.

Result: Appeals allowed; impugned judgment and orders set aside.

JUDGMENT:

(Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati)

Challenging the common order dated 04.02.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.8716 of 2008, 12390 & 21393 of 2012, the appellants who were the petitioners in the said writ petitions, preferred these intra Court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. Inasmuch as these appeals stem out of a common order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts that led to filing of these writ appeals are summarized hereunder:

(a) Originally, Sri Pydi Appana & Sri Pydi Krishna Sarma are the absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac.3.52 cents in Sy.No.59/3 situated in Marripalem village, Visakhapatnam (herein after referred to as 'subject property') and they have executed a registered lease document No.1138/1964 dated 22.04.1964 in favour of M/s A.P.Electrical Equipment Corporation Ltd., Visakhapatnam (herein after referred to as 'Company') for a period of 99 years and the said Company established its unit for manufacturing of electrical transformers, etc. It appears that, after the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, Act,1976) came into force, the Company, being the lease holder of the subject property, filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976 in respect of properties owned and possessed by it within the Urban Agglomeration of Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam. In the said declaration, apart from the land owned by it in Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam and other places, the subject property in Sy.No.59/3 was shown as leased lands with structures in its occupation claiming exemption under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1976. In the course of time, the Company became defunct and was closed w.e.f. January, 2000.

(b) After the demise of Sri Pydi Appana & Sri Pydi Krishna Sarma, Smt Pydi Varahalamma and her two sons, succeeded the ownership of the subject property and filed O.S.No.516 of 2005 seeking eviction of the Company from the subject property, which was decreed on 11.04.2007. The appeal, which was preferred by the Company, was allowed setting aside the eviction orders on 07.09.2007 and the said order was questioned by way of filing second appeal vide S.A.No.1212 of 2007 which is pending consideration.

(c). While so, the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad (2^nd respondent in W.P.No.8716/2008) passed final orders dated 03.02.2004 under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 holding that the Company is the surplus holder of land to an extent of 39559.83 Sq.mts wherein Sy.No.59/3 (subject property) was shown as exempted under Section 4(11) of the Act, 1976. Against the said order, the Company preferred an appeal wherein the appellate authority has observed that, the surplus land held by the Company would be 48527.13 Sq.mts not 39559.83 Sq.mts and remanded the matter for reconsideration. It appears that, even in the revised order dated 20.03.2007, the subject property with structures, roads, etc., were exempted under Section 4(11). Thus, the exemption of subject property under Section 4(11) attained finality.

(d). The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad, issued a notification dated 07.07.2007 under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976 proposing to take over the entire surplus lands of Company and called for objections including the subject property. The said Section 10(1) notification was published in Gazette on 12.07.2007. Thereupon, Smt Pydi Varahalamma made representations to the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Visakhapatnam, apprising that the subject property was exempted under Section 4(11) of the Act, 1976, as such the question of surrender does not arise. The said authority has addressed a letter to the Special Officer, Hyderabad to rectify the said mistake committed in the notification dated 07.07.2007 but the authority concerned, without considering the same, issued proceedings No.G1/10571/76 dated 05.02.2008 for taking over possessio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(AP) 956

N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIDHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ., RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.M/s Bhiragacha Finance Company Private Limited - AppellantVs.The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - RespondentWrit Appeal Nos. 165, 167 & 216 of 2025Decided On : 09-04-2026

Actual physical possession of surplus land must be established by cogent evidence to avoid abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act. Mere paper possession is insufficient, and mandatory procedural requirements for notification and service under the original statute must be strictly followed.

Cases Referred (3)

N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ., RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
M/s Bhiragacha Finance Company Private Limited - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 165, 167 & 216 of 2025
Decided On : 09-04-2026