1. Writ petitioners claimed title and possession over land in Sy.Nos.203 and 204, distinct from land in Sy.No.202 declared surplus under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16018
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ
State of Telangana – Appellant
Versus
Mirza Basheer Baig – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL Nos.376 of 2024|WRIT APPEAL No.868 of 2023|WRIT APPEAL No.870 of 2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Divya Adepu, Sri A. Venkatesh, Ms. Pratusha Boppana
For the Respondents: Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Divya Adepu, Sri A. Venkatesh, Ms. Pratusha Boppana
For the Respondents: Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana
Admissions made by the State in its pleadings regarding the identity of land acquired under the ULC Act are binding, and the court will protect the possession of land specifically excluded by such admissions, regardless of subsequent claims of identity disputes.
Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 6(1), 8(1), 8(3), 8(4), 10(1), 10(5), 10(6) - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 145 and 146 - Constitution of India - Article 226 and 300A - Determination of land identity - State’s admission in counter-affidavit regarding specific survey number of surplus land - Whether the State can subsequently claim an identity dispute over land explicitly admitted to be outside the ULC proceedings - The State's admission that the surplus land pertains only to Sy.No.202 (new Sy.No.207) and that there was no interference with Sy.Nos.203 and 204 is binding - Reliance on a Panchanama from Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings to establish possession is valid when not displaced - Intra-court Writ Appeal scope - Interference only permissible if the Single Judge's order is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law. (Paras 41, 44, 50)
Facts of the case:
The respondents/writ petitioners claimed possession over land in Sy.Nos.203 and 204, tracing title back to 1928. The State contended that the land was surplus land acquired under the ULC Act. However, in its counter-affidavit, the State explicitly admitted that the surplus land taken pertained exclusively to Sy.No.202 (corresponding to new Sy.No.207) and that it never interfered with lands in Sy.Nos.203 and 204. Based on these admissions, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioners.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the State's admission in the counter-affidavit clearly demarcated the distinction between the lands. The evidence, including town survey records (T.S. No. 27) and a panchanama dated 13.06.1991, established the petitioners' possession of Sy.Nos.203 and 204. The court also noted a procedural lapse where the State failed to issue notice under Section 10(5) to interested parties who had submitted objections.
Issues: Whether there was an overlap between the surplus land in Sy.No.202 and the petitioners' land in Sy.Nos.203 and 204, and whether the Single Judge's order exceeded the scope of writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State is estopped from claiming an identity dispute after specifically admitting in its pleadings that the acquired land was distinct from the petitioners' land. Furthermore, in intra-court appeals, the appellate court must restrain itself unless the judgment of the Single Judge is perverse or contains an error apparent on the face of the record.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
- criminal procedure
Table of Contents
2. State argued ULC proceedings and possession of surplus land in Sy.No.202 were final. Petitioners contended the land in dispute was Sy.Nos.203 and 204, not affected by ULC orders. (Para 12 , 13 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
3. State admitted in its counter that surplus land pertained only to Sy.No.202 and not Sy.Nos.203 and 204, which vitiated its appellate arguments. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 )
4. An intra-court writ appeal lies only against perversity or error apparent in the single judge's order; it is not a rehearing on merits. (Para 50 )
5. Dismissed all writ appeals as the learned single judge's order was not perverse and correctly appreciated facts and law. (Para 51 , 52 )
6. Can an intra-court writ appeal be filed against a single judge's order on any ground?
No; interference is permissible only if the judgment is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law. (Para 50 )
7. Can a state in appeal resile from a categorical admission made in its own counter-affidavit?
No; the state is bound by its admission and cannot contend otherwise in appeal. (Para 41 , 44 )
8. Are proceedings under Section 145 CrPC wholly irrelevant to the factum of possession?
No; while summary, the fact of possession evidenced through a panchanama cannot be lightly disregarded if attained finality. (Para 43 )
9. Does the failure to issue notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act to all interested persons affect the validity of possession?
Yes; it is a procedural lapse reinforcing that ULC proceedings were confined to Sy.No.202 and did not extend to the petitioner's land. (Para 46 )
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar Heard Ms.Divya Adepu, learned Special Government Pleader representing the Office of the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.376 of 2024, respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.A.No.868 of 2023 and respondent Nos.4, 5, 7 and 8 in W.A.No.870 of 2023, Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel appearing for appellants in W.A.No.868 of 2023 and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the Writ Appeals.
2. The present Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2022 in W.P.No.14062 of 2010 and W.P.No.14062 of 2010.
3. W.A.No.376 of 2024 is filed by the State, W.A.No.868 of 2023 is filed by the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.14062 of 2010 i.e. C.V. Raja Rao and W.A.No.870 of 2023 is filed by the third party viz., one P.Anand Mudaliar seeking leave to file Appeal against the judgment dated
08.06.2023 in W.P.No.14062 of 2010.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Writ Petition.
5. In Writ Petition, the Writ petitioner No.1 Mirza Basheer Baig assailed the action of the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad (respondent no.2) seeking to deprive the Writ petitioner No.1 and his family members of their property rights in respect of land in Sy.Nos.203 and 204 admeasuring 4595 sq. yards situated at Lalaguda village, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District as arbitrary, by holding that the order passed by the respondent No.2 covering the declaration filed by the father of respondent No.3 holding him to be excess land-holder in respect of Sy.No.202 of Lalaguda village shall not bind the Writ petitioner No.1 and his family members.
6. The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition are that the subject land admeasuring Acs.19.24 guntas in old Sy.No.179, corresponding to new Sy.Nos.203 and 204 situated at Lalaguda, originally belonged to Smt.Siraj Unnisa Begum, who had purchased the same under a registered sale deed in the year 1928; and that on her demise, the property devolved upon her son Nawab Khusro Yar Jung, and thereafter, the writ petitioner No.1, his son, along with other family members succeeded to the property.
It was asserted that after alienation of various portions, an extent of 4,595 sq. yards remained with the writ petitioners.
7. It was the further case of the writ petitioners that they had entered into an agreement of sale in the year 1986 in favour of certain agreement holders, who, on their behalf, applied for layout approval before the municipal authorities. A tentative layout was sanctioned on 29.02.1988 by the competent authority dividing the land into plots. Thereafter, the father of respondent No.3 also sought layout approval in respect of land claimed in Sy.No.202. Upon survey, the municipal authorities cancelled the layout granted in his favour and instead sanctioned the layout in favour of writ petitioner No.1.
8. It is further contended that multiple civil proceedings were initiated by respondent No.3 and his brother claiming title over land in Sy.No.202 corresponding to new Sy.No.207. Suits for declaration and injunction, including O.S.Nos.406 of 1989, 877 of 1990, and 225 of 1993, along with connected appellate proceedings, were all dismissed by the competent civil courts. Thus, the claim of respondent No.3 over the disputed property did not find favour in any of the civil proceedings.
9. It is further the case of the writ petitioners that proceeding under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. were initiated at the instance of respondent No.3, resulting in temporary attachment of the property. However, pursuant to directions issued in criminal proceedings, the land was surveyed and demarcated by the competent authorities, who concluded that the disputed land fell within Sy.Nos.203 and 204. Consequently, pos
