SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 547

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, T.VINOD KUMAR, JJ.
M/s. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And others. - Appellants
Versus
The Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.697 of 2023
Decided on : 24-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Harin Raval, Learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Chetluru Srinivas
For the Respondents: Mr. Harender Pershad, Mr. Md. Nawaz Hyder Ali, Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, Mr. T.Rathnakar, Mr. E.Ajay Reddy, Ms. E.Anisha Reddy, Mr. K.Durga Prasad, Mr. K.Ratnam, Mr. K.Raghava Charyulu, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Agricultural Ceiling Act, 1973 - Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 - Writ Petition - Land possession and title - Appellants challenged action of TSIIC in attempting to dispossess them from 53 acres despite interim orders. Court reiterated that dispossession can only occur in accordance with law and title matters must be resolved in civil courts - Refusal of relief on grounds not pleaded found improper. (Paras 24, 34, 42)

Facts of the case:
Appellants purchased 53 acres of land from a GPA holder, asserting continuous possession and enjoyment against attempts by TSIIC officers to dispossess them, despite existing interim orders. (Paras 9, 12, 60)

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge erred in adjudicating title thereby dismissing the writ petition. Court emphasized that a person in possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law, irrespective of any claims against title. (Paras 40, 52)

Issues: Whether the Single Judge could decide the title in a writ petition, whether dispossession can occur without due process, and if relief could be denied based on unpleaded grounds. (Paras 24, 35, 42)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the appellants were in possession without formal dispossession orders and challenges to the sale deeds were not made, they should remain undisturbed until resolved through appropriate civil proceedings. (Paras 40, 58)

Result: Writ appeal allowed; proceedings to proceed in compliance with the law; state restrained from dispossessing the appellants without due process.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the land ownership and disputes (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. court observations regarding the proceedings (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. arguments from respondents against appellant's claim (Para 19 , 20)
4. legal standards for adjudicating title issues in writ petitions (Para 34 , 41)
5. final ruling and court directions on land possession (Para 59 , 60)

JUDGMENT :

This intra-court appeal is filed against common order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge by which three writ petitions have been dismissed. However, challenge in this appeal is confined to order of the learned Single Judge insofar it pertains to writ petition No.30855 of 2016 filed by the appellants, which has also been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellants’ challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra:

(i) FACTS:-

2. Eleven pattedars held the land measuring 525.39 acres situated at Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agricultural Ceiling Act’) came into force on 01.01.1975, which prescribed a ceiling limit on agricultural lands. A proceeding under the Agricultural Ceiling Act was initiated in respect of entire land in survey No.83 measuring 525.39 acres situated at Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Land Reforms Tribunal passed a common order dated 02.06.1976 and declared the land measuring 27.27 acres in survey No.83 to be surplus agricultural land. Thereafter, by another common order dated 16.06.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal declared land measuring 71.20 acres in survey No.83 to be surplus land. Thus, out of survey No.83, only measuring 99.07 acres was declared as surplus land.

3. The possession of the aforesaid land which was declared as surplus agricultural land to the extent of 99.07 acres in survey No.83 was taken on 23.11.1976 by the State Government. The Parliament in pursuance of resolutions passed by various State Legislatures including erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh enacted Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Urban Land Ceiling Act’). In the aforesaid Act, the appointed date as defined under Section 2(a) means the date of introduction of the Urban Land Ceiling Act in the Parliament which is 15th of January, 1976. The aforesaid Act became applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh on 17.02.1976. A Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 13.10.1977 in W.P.No.17077 of 1977 inter alia held that provisions of the Agricultural Ceiling Act are not applicable to vacant lands situated within the urban agglomeration. The lands comprised in survey No.83 were situated within the urban agglomeration of city of Hyderabad and therefore, the holders of land were required to file statement under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thereupon, the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were initiated to determine the excess land.

4. The competent authority in exercise of powers under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act issued separate final statements on 06.12.1979 and declared lands measuring 470.33 acres to be excess vacant land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thereafter, notification under Section 10(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act was issued on 16.01.1980 in respect of land measuring 470.33 acres, which was followed by a notification dated 24.01.1981 under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act notifying that land measuring 18,94,473 square meters (468.234 acres) by which the land vested absolutely in the State Government. The notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act was issued on 26.02.1981 on the general power of attorney (GPA) holder by which he was asked to deliver possession of the land to the extent of 468.234 acres.

5. It appears that GPA holder submitted an application before the Land Reforms Tribuna

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top