APHC010090202023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3559] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL NO: 350/2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-aside the orders of the learned Single Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, of High Court of A.P in dismissing the W.P.No.1115/2017 dt.12thday of October, 2022 by allowing the writ appeal over the impugned orders in W.P.No.1115/2017 dated 12-10-2022 with costs throughout and pass Between: 1. AFZULUNNISA BEGUM, W/O LATE MOHAMMED ZAKRIYA, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O RAWOOF MANZIL, KAKI STREET, SRIKAKULAM. 2. MOHAMMAD KHASIM, S/O LATE MOHAMMED ZAKRIYA, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O RAWOOF MANZIL, KAKI STREET, SRIKAKULAM. 3. MOHAMMAD ABDUL KHADAR, S/O LATE MOHAMMED ZAKRIYA, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O RAWOOF MANZIL, KALD STREET, SRIKAKULAM. ...APPELLANTS(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY (REVENUE). SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM 2 DISTRICT. 3. AP HOUSING BOARD, , REP. BY THE VICE-CHAIRMAN AND HOUSING COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF AP, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondents from forcible dispossession of petitioners possession of subject property in T.S.No.194/3 (Old R.S.No.234), Patha Srirakulam Ward, Collector Bungalow Road, Near Z.P., Srikakulam now in Srikakulam Municipal Corporation limits pending disposal of the writ appeal and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to appoint a Court Commissioner with the assistance of Government Surveyor to inspect the subject property in T.S.No.194/3 (Old R.S.No.234), Patha Srirakulam Ward, Collector Bungalow Road, Near Z.P., Srikakulam now in Srikakulam Municipal Corporation limits of the writ petition and to note down any constructions are raised therein and file the report into the Hon'ble Court pending disposal of the writ appeal and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order, dated 24-04-2023, passed in WA.No. 350 of 2023, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellants(S): 1. P V RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. Y V SRINIVASAN(SC FOR AP HOUSING BOARD) 3 The Court made the following Judgment: (Per Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) The A.P.Housing Board has sought acquisition of land in Patha Srikakulam Village in the year 1983, for the purpose of construction of houses. In pursuance of this requisition, a notification, dated 19.08.1983 is said to have been issued, by the acquisition authority. This notification is said to be a composite declaration and notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 apart from a notification for waiver of enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act. 2. This notification affected the lands of late Sri Md.Zakriya Khan to an extent of Ac.0.14 cents in Town Sy.No.193/4, corresponding to Revenue Sy.No.236 and an extent of Ac.1.87 cents of land in Town Sy.No.194/3, corresponding to R.S.No.234. Apart from these lands, the notification also covered various extents of other lands belonging to other persons. 3. One of the affected parties, approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.13730 of 1986 contending that no award has been passed in the acquisition proceedings despite passage of time of more than two (2) years from the date of notification, dated 19.08.1983 and consequently the entire acquisition process initiated under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act should be quashed. The learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 01.09.1988 had quashed the notification 4 under Section 4(1) of the Act. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition, on the ground that no counter had been filed against the pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and consequently the averments in the writ petition would have to be accepted. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal came to be filed vide W.A.No.1746/1989. This writ appeal came to be dismissed on 01.09.1995. 4. Sri Md.Zakriya Khan, who is not a party to these proceedings initiated separate proceedings by way of W.P.No.11582 of 1996 and W.P.No.7425 of 1990. A challenge was made to the acquisition of land in Town S.No.193/4 in W.P.No.11582 of 1996. This Writ Petition came to be allowed by way of an order, dated 19.02.1997. No appeal appears to be filed against this order and became final. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this land was also released by the Collector. 6. Late Md.Zakriya Khan, again laid a fresh challenge to the acquisition of land in Sy.No.193/4 by way of W.P.No.7425 of 1990. This Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 27.03.1997 by a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P. It is not clear as to the submissions made before the Division Bench in as much as the Division Bench had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petition was based on an apprehension of acquisition and such apprehension was misplaced. After the order of dismissal, an application appears to have been made, under the caption “for being mentioned” to the 5 same Division Bench. After hearing the counsel, the Division Bench again closed the “for being mentioned” application by order, dated 22.09.2000. In this order the Division Bench observed that it would be open to the petitioner, in that writ petition, to approach the authorities for relief. 7. On the basis of this observation, late Md.Zakriya Khan, and after his demise, the petitioners who are his legal heirs, approached the authorities including the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Branch Manager of A.P. Housing Board for release of property. There were various communications between the A.P. Housing Board, Joint Collector, Collector as well as Chairman of the A.P. Housing Board, regarding this issue. The substance of the communication was that the Revenue Authorities sought instructions from the A.P. Housing Board as to whether the land was to be released in favour of the petitioners or not. The A.P. Housing Board took the stand that the said land cannot be released. 8. Aggrieved by this stand of the A.P. Housing Board, the petitioners approached this Court by way of W.P.No.1115/2017. This writ petition came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on 12.10.2022. 9. The case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the initial order of the learned Single Judge, dated 01.09.1988 in W.P.No.13730 of 1986 had set aside the requisition process relating to the land of the petitioner and as such the authorities including A.P. Housing Board would have to return the land to the petitioners. The appellants had also contended that no 6 possession of the land had been taken by the respondents and as such the acquisition process would have to be treated as withdrawn and the authorities should not interfere with the rights of the appellants over the said land. 10. The learned Single Judge, after considering the said objections took a view that the land in question in W.P.No.13730 of 1986 related to another survey number and did not cover the land of the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that an award was passed on 22.09.1986 and consequently there can be no question of return of land. 11. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the acquisition process, in its entirety stood quashed by virtue of the orders of the learned Single Judge dated, 01.09.1988 and consequently no further declaration is necessary for setting aside the acquisition process in relation to lands of all other affected parties, who were not party to the writ petition also. He would also contend that since possession of land was never taken, there was no vesting of the land in the State and consequently the acquisition process can be withdrawn, under the provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 12. Sri Y.V.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the A.P. Housing Board would contend that the acquisition process was completed more than 30 years back and the land is very much in the possession of A.P.Housing Board. He would submit that in such circumstances, challenging the acquisition process after such a long time is impermissible. He would further submit that the 7 challenge made by Md.Zakriya Khan in relation to the acquisition of land in Sy.No.194/3 has been dismissed by way of an order, dated 27.03.1997 and the same has become final and no further challenge can be allowed in as much as such a challenge would amount to violation of principles of res judicata. 13. Perusal of the counter-affidavits filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as A.P. Housing Board authorities reveals that the land is said to have been handed over to the A.P.Housing Board by the revenue authorities on 21.05.1987. This averment is strongly objected by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants. However, the fact remains that an extent of Ac.34-00 cents is said to have been handed over on that day to the AP Housing Board. A large extent of this land is said to have been developed by the AP Housing Board for construction of houses. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the land of the appellants has been left vacant cannot be taken to mean that land was handed over to the A.P.Housing Board. 14. The contention of the learned Senior counsel, for the appellants ,that the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 01.09.1988, as confirmed by a Division Bench, on 01.09., would be sufficient to hold that the acquisition process has been set aside, merits consideration. However, the subsequent order of the Division Bench, dated 27.03.1997 in W.P.No.7245 of 1990 read with order, dated 22.09.2000 in the same writ petition, under the caption “for being mentioned” would run counter to the contention of the appellants. As the specific plea for restraining the respondents from further acquisition 8 proceedings in Sy.No.194/3 has been specifically rejected by the Division Bench, there can be no further challenge to the said acquisition process, unless the aforesaid orders are set aside or stand modified. The appellants have not taken any further steps in this regard, the orders of the Division Bench, dated 27.03.1997 and 22.09.2000 have become final and this Court cannot go further into the very same issue raised by the appellants. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 04.11.2025 KA/KSS 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL NO: 350/2023 Date: 04.11.2025 KA/KSS