Telangana High Court
Dr. N. Madhav Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 1 December, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.150 of 2013, 9240 of 2015, 20394 and
36489 of 2016 and 18652, 23169 and 30511 of 2018
Dated: 01.12.2025
Between
P. Narayana Rao and others.
...PETITIONERS
And
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Through the Joint Collector,
Hyderabad District and others.
...RESPONDENTS
COMMON ORDER:
Since all these writ petitions relate to a common property and connected with Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings in Appeal No.Hyd/21/1987, they petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. WP.No.30511 of 2018 is a comprehensive writ petition filed challenging the urban land ceiling proceedings issued under Sections 8(4) and 8(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'ULC Act') in Appeal No.Hyd/21/1987 dated 19.02.2003.
3. WP.No.150 of 2013 is filed challenging the Endorsement No.E1/1114/2012 dated 22.03.2012 issued by the Joint Collector, 2 Hyderabad, on behalf of NOC Committee, in rejecting the request of the petitioners for issuance of NOC for approval of building plan for construction in land bearing Municipal Nos.1-4-27/72/7, 1-4- 27/72/8 and 1-4-27/72/145, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.
4. WP.No.9240 of 2015 is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal and respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Secunderabad Mandal, in treating the subject land as Government land and trying to distribute the land to landless poor as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
5. WP.Nos.20394 and 36489 of 2016 are filed challenging the notices dated Nil.06.2016 and 19.10.2016 respectively whereby the petitioners were informed that the subject land in their possession has been determined as surplus and the same has been taken over by the Government under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act and requested the petitioners to file an application under G.O.Ms.No.92 Revenue (ULC) Department dated 26.05.2016 for regularization of surplus land in their possession.
6. WP.No.23169 of 2018 is filed challenging the action of the respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Secunderabad Mandal, in seeking to 3 prevent the petitioners from proceeding with construction in respect of the subject property.
7. WP.No.18562 of 2018 is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.3 - Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, in not extending police protection to the petitioners for construction of building in the subject property.
8. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WP.No.30511 of 2018, are set out hereunder:
(a) The wife of the petitioner No.1 purchased the subject property, i.e. Plot No.8, admeasuring 166.66 sq. yards in the name of her minor daughter, N. Vasundara, under a registered sale deed dated 17.08.1996 bearing Document No.1550/1996. After obtaining permission from the respondent No.2, the wife of the petitioner No.1 constructed a building comprising of G+1 in which they are running a 10 bedded Nursing Home under the name and style "Vasundara Nursing Home". Later, the petitioner No.1, his wife and daughter purchased Plot No.7 in the name of Sri. P. Narayan Rao under a registered sale deed dated Nil.03.2003 bearing Document No.70/2003. Similarly, Sri. Narayan Rao and petitioner No.1 purchased an extent of 240 sq. yards covered by Plot No.145, partly in the name of Sri. Narayan Rao and partly in their name.4
All these three plots are in compact block wherein the Nursing Home is constructed and being run by the petitioners.
(b) It is stated that the land admeasuring Ac.6.09 guntas in Sy.Nos.40, 41 and 42, of Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderbad, was originally classified as Inam land. Basing on the application made by the Padmashali Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short 'the Society') under Section 8 read with Section 10 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1965, Occupancy Right Certificate was granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Western Division in File No.A1/128/1976 dated 03.12.1977. Thereafter, mutation of the subject property was effected by the Thasildar, Secunderabad in File No.F1/11861/1977 dated 30.12.1977. The Society applied to the then Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for approval and sanction of layout covering the entire extent of Ac.6.09 guntas. The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Town Planning Section) in his Proceedings dated 31.05.1977 addressed to the President of Society, asked to demarcate the roads, plots and boundaries in accordance with the revised and corrected layout. The then Government of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with G.OMs.No.836 Municipal Administration dated 07.10.1978 favourably considered the request of the Society to relax the rules under the MCH layout Rules, 1965 and the Building Laws 1972. It is stated that when the 5 petitioners intended to apply for new building permission, the MCH insisted the petitioners to get NOC from the NOC Committee chaired by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad.
(c) It is stated that on enquiries by the Petitioners, it was revealed that the Society had filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the ULC Act'), claiming among other lands, the land in Sy.Nos.39 to 42, on the basis of the ORC granted by the Tribunal under the Abolition of Inams Act. The layout of the Society was declared surplus. The Society carried the matter in Appeal under Section 33 of the Act before the Commissioner of Appeals registered as Appeal No.Hyd/21/1987. The appeal was dismissed on 19.02.2003. However, the Society did not question the order of the Appellate authority.
(d) It is stated that WP.No.8729 of 2003 was filed by the Vasudevamma Charitable Trust challenging the order dated 19.02.2003 of the Appellate authority and this Court granted status-quo on 02.05.2003. A counter was filed by the Special Thasildar, Zone-II, wherein it is clearly averred that "in view of the status-quo granted by this Hon'ble Court further proceedings in respect of the land could not be taken up". In the meanwhile, the ULC Act was repealed on 27.03.2008. As possession was not 6 taken, WP.No.8729 of 2003 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 16.02.2012.
(e) It is stated that the respondents, allegedly, have taken possession on 27.03.2008, the date on which, the ULC Act was repealed and even when status-quo order passed in WP.No.8729 of 2003 was in force. The alleged surplus land was not at all inspected on ground and a paper panchanama was conducted. The alleged notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued to the GPA of the Declarant and not to the possessors including the petitioners. The respondent authorities were aware that the Society was agitating its rights in Appeal No.Hyd/21/1987, but neither the Society nor any of its members were issued notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. The respondent No.5 has issued notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, which was challenged in in WP.No.26703 of 2018 wherein status quo order was passed.
9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 in WP.No.150 of 2013, it is stated that that the President of Padmashali Cooperative Housing Society and one P. Visweswara Reddy, GPA of B. Ranga Reddy, who was recorded as Inamdar in Column No.20 of T.S.L.R, filed a statement in Form I in CC.No.H1/12581/76 and H2/13951/76 declaring the land in Sy.Nos.39 to 42 and 77, 78 of Bolakpur Village. As per the revenue records, above survey numbers stand as patta lands in the name of 7 Sri B. Ranga Reddy. As M/s. Padmashali Cooperative Housing Society failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim, the total extent of the land declared was computed to the holding of Sri. B. Ranga Reddy and draft orders under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act were issued determining 1,80,821.83 sq. meters in excess of the ceiling limits.
10. It is stated that in response to the draft statement under Section 8 (1) and notice under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act, objections were filed by Sri B. Vijaya Reddy, LR of late B. Ranga Reddy, Sri Vishveshwar Reddy, GPA and LR of late B. Ranga Reddy; and trustee of Vasudevamma Charitable Trust, Sri P. Bala Narsaiah and Sri T.A Chary, President of M/s Padmashali Cooperative Housing Society. Objections raised by the declarants and other persons were examined on their merits. The objection petitioners did not produce any record or evidence in support of their claims. Therefore, the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act was confirmed without any alterations and final orders under Section 8(4) and final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act were issued vide proceedings dated 30.09.1986 declaring the declarants as excess holders to an extent of 1,08,821-83 sq. meters.
8
11. It is stated that later the case was processed further and notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued and got published in AP Gazette No.102 dated 04.05.1987 and declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was also issued and got published in AP Gazette No.139 dated 14.07.1987 vesting the surplus land with the Government free from all encumbrances. Later, possession of the land was taken over under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act on 27.03.2008 under cover of panchanama to an extent of 64,964.26 sq. meters, which includes the land of the writ petitioners.
12. It is stated that the request of petitioners for issue of No Objection Certificate was rejected by the Committee Constituted under G.O.Ms.No.2111, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 05.12.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.93, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 28.01-2006 in the meeting held on 13.03.2012 and Endorsement No.E1/1114/2012 dated 22.03.2012 was issued rejecting request of the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners have not filed any application for regularization of land under relevant GO's before Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC. In respect of the averments that no appeal was filed before appellate authority and also appeal against O.S.No.1314 of 2009 it is submitted that this respondent is not a party in those cases.
9
13. Mr. Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the subject land, which is evident from the notices Nil.06.2016 and 19.10.2016 (subject matter of WP.Nos.20394 and 36489 of 2016) wherein possession of the petitioners was admitted. There is building constructed in the subject property. Physical possession was not taken from the petitioners. Status quo order granted in WP.No.8729 of 2003 was in force as on 27.03.2008. Even if the vendors of the petitioners, Society, has not filed any writ petition, it is relevant to state that WP.No.8729 of 2003 was filed by one G. Vijaya Reddy, challenging common order dated 19.02.2003 in Appeal Nos.Hyd/20/198 and Hyd/21/1987. Status quo order was granted in respect of the entire property belonging to the original declarant. In view of the status quo order, possession was not taken as admitted in the counter in WP.No.150 of 2013. The alleged panchanama is a fictitious document. Notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act has not been issued to the petitioners, who are, admittedly, in possession. Further, there is no document filed by the respondent authorities to show that notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act has been issued to the declarants and possessors of the subject property. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
10
14. Mr. Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment, submitted that neither the petitioners nor their vendors have chosen to file a writ petition challenging the common order dated 19.02.2003 in Appeal Nos.Hyd/20/198 and Hyd/21/1987. The writ petition was filed only by the appellant in Appeal No.Hyd/21/1987 and status quo order passed therein would be applicable only to him and not to the petitioners or their vendors
- Society.
Discussion and Analysis:
15. It is borne out from the record that WP.No.8729 of 2003 filed by Vasudevamma Charitable Trust and Vishveshwar Reddy, S/o. Ranga Reddy, challenging the common order dated 19.02.2003 in Commissioner Appeals Prog. No.HYD/20 & 21/87 passed by the Court of the Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad. On the statement by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no further orders are necessary to be passed, the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 16.02.2012. In the counter filed in WP.No.8729 of 2003, Ex.P7, at Para 8, it was stated that draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act was confirmed on 30.09.1986; the declarant was held to be surplus holder to an extent of 108821.83 sq. meters; the declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published on 14.07.1987; the entire surplus land 11 vested with the Government free from all encumbrances and that in view of the status quo order granted by this Court, proceedings in respect of the land could not be taken up.
16. The counter was filed on 01.06.2007 along with vacate stay petition. The ULC Act was repealed in the State of AP with effect from 27.03.2008. As possession was, admittedly, not taken, the counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.8729 of 2003 reported before this Court that no orders are necessary and as stated above, the writ petition was dismissed on 16.02.2012.
17. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment did not rebut the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ULC proceedings, which culminated in the order dated 19.02.2003 in Appeal Nos.Hyd/20 and 21/87, so far as other appellants (Vasudevamma Charitable Trust represented by its Trustee, Vishveshwar Reddy and B. Vishveshwar Reddy, S/o. B. Ranga Reddy) stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Thus, it is clear that the land in possession of the petitioners in WP.No.8729 of 2003 was not taken, which is evident from para 8 of the counter affidavit therein.
18. It is surprising to note that the respondent No.1 though asserted that they have taken possession of the subject land from the petitioners on 27.03.2008 (date of repeal of ULC Act in the 12 State of AP), no details of service of notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act are mentioned in the counter affidavit. In para 4(ii) of the counter, it is stated that Section 10(1) notification was issued on 04.05.1987; declaration was issued and got published on 14.07.19897 and possession was taken over under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act on 27.03.2008.
19. The record in H2/13951/76 produced by the learned Government Pleader for Assignment has been verified by this Court and it is found that Section 10(5) notice dated 25.02.2008 (page No.1471), though prepared in the name of Vishweshwar Reddy, has not been dispatched. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that notice has been dispatched through registered post or served on the declarant/family members/legal heirs in person. Further, as stated in para 15 above, it is clear that possession has not been taken from the petitioners in WP.No.8729 of 2003.
20. The record does not disclose that any Section 10(5) notice has been issued in the name of the petitioners or their vendors. Thus, it is very much apparent that the respondent authorities could not take possession of the subject land as status quo order dated 02.05.2003 was passed in respect of both appeals i.e. Appeal Nos.Hyd/20 and 21/87 filed by B. Vishweshwar Reddy and M/s. Padmasali Co-operative House Building Society, respectively. 13
21. It has been held by the Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. HARI RAM 1 that notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act is mandatory and the relevant paras are extracted hereunder:
"Peaceful dispossession
34. Sub-section (5) of Section 10, for the first time, speaks of "possession" which says where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person, who may be in possession of it to surrender or transfer possession to the State Government or to any other person, duly authorized by the State Government.
35. If de facto possession has already passed on to the State Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) to Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression "where any land is vested" under sub- section (5) to Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) to Section 10 can be voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided under Section 11 of the Act early. Once there is no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in writing under sub-section (5) to Section 10 to surrender or deliver possession. Subsection (5) of Section 10 visualizes a situation of surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession.
Forceful dispossession
36. The Act provides for forceful dispossession but only when a person refuses or fails to comply with an order 1 (2013) 4 SCC 280 14 under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Sub-section (6) to Section 10 again speaks of "possession" which says, if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order made under sub- section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land to be given to the State Government and for that purpose, force - as may be necessary - can be used. Sub-section (6), therefore, contemplates a situation of a person refusing or fails to comply with the order under sub- section (5), in the event of which the competent authority may take possession by use of force. Forcible dispossession of the land, therefore, is being resorted only in a situation which falls under sub-section (6) and not under sub-section (5) to Section 10.
Sub-sections (5) and (6), therefore, take care of both the situations, i.e. taking possession by giving notice that is "peaceful dispossession" and on failure to surrender or give delivery of possession under Section 10(5), than "forceful dispossession" under sub-section (6) of Section 10.
37. The requirement of giving notice under sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word 'may' has been used therein, the word 'may' in both the sub-sections has to be understood as "shall" because a court charged with the task of enforcing the statute needs to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from failure to implement the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it might result the land holder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word 'may' has to be read as 'shall'."
22. In view of the above discussion, as Section 10(5) notice and Section 10(6) order has not been served on the petitioners and moreover, as the notice dated 19.10.2016 and notices dated 15 Nil.06.2016 (WP.Nos.20394 and 36489 of 2016) beyond doubt prove petitioners are in physical and actual possession of the subject lands, this Court does not have any hesitation to hold that the alleged panchanama dated 27.03.2008 is a paper possession and illegal. Since the possession of the subject land has not been taken over from the petitioners, the ULC proceedings so far as subject land is concerned stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.
23. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the proceedings No.E1/1114/2012 dated 22.03.2012, proceedings dated 19.10.2016 and notices dated Nil.06.2016 are quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the building applications of the petitioners without reference to the ULC proceedings in CC.No.H2/13951/76.
The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J December 1, 2025 Note: Issue CC in three (3) days (B/o) DSK