# M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 274
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-02-27
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-a-p-electrical-equipment-corporation-v-the-tahsildar-ors-etc-38289
- **Pages:** 78

## Headnote

Whether in the instant case, single Judge of the High Court was
right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled to get the benefit
of s.3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court committed
any error in upsetting the findings recorded by the Single Judge.
Headnotes†
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sub-section (5)
of section 10 and sub-section (6) of s.10 - Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - s.3 - The Competent
Authority issued notice u/s.10(5) of the ULC Act directing the
appellant to surrender the excess vacant land within 30 days -
According to respondents, the appellant's factory was closed
and the said notice was fixed on the main door of factory
premises - Due to non-compliance of the aforementioned
notice, order u/s.10(6) of the ULC Act was issued on 05.02.2008
authorising the enquiry officer to take over the possession of
the surplus land - Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer took over
the possession of the surplus land on 08.02.2008 by way of
a panchnama - However, it is the case of appellant that the
respondents allegedly took only symbolic possession of the
subject land - Thereafter, the State brought into force the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 with
effect from 27.03.2008 - Writ petition by appellant against
illegal attempts of dispossession - The Single Judge of the
High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the appellant
and held that order u/s.10(6) was void, illegal and bad in
law - However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed
both the appeals filed by the State and thereby set aside the
judgment and order passed by the Single Judge - Correctness:
* Author
1626
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: The issue as to whether actual possession of land declared
excess under the Act has been taken over or not assumes great
significance after the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999
inasmuch as if possession has not been taken over, the proceedings
would abate u/s.4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 and the ownership of
the land, if vested in the State Government u/s.10(3) of the Act,
1976 would be required to be restored to the original land-holder
subject to repayment of any amount that has been paid by the
State Government with respect to such land - The "vesting" in
sub-section (3) of section 10 means vesting of title absolutely
and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person
voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession - 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, 1976 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 - Sub-section (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 - The State has to
establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or
surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5)
of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of
Section 10 - On failure to establish any of those situations, the
landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal
Act, 1999 - In the case on hand, the State Government has not
been able to establish any of those situations - The mere paper
possession would not save the situation for the State Government
unless the State is able to establish by cogent evidence that actual
physical possession of the entire land was taken over by evicting
each and every person from the land - The onus is on the State
to establish that actual physical possession of the excess vacant
land was taken over before the repeal - Hence, the Single Judge

## Text

_Characters 0–39,808 of 166,071. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39808 for what follows._

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1625 : 2025 INSC 274
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation
v.
The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4526-4527 of 2024)
27 February 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in the instant case, single Judge of the High Court was
right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled to get the benefit
of s.3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court committed
any error in upsetting the findings recorded by the Single Judge.
Headnotes†
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sub-section (5)
of section 10 and sub-section (6) of s.10 - Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - s.3 - The Competent
Authority issued notice u/s.10(5) of the ULC Act directing the
appellant to surrender the excess vacant land within 30 days -
According to respondents, the appellant's factory was closed
and the said notice was fixed on the main door of factory
premises - Due to non-compliance of the aforementioned
notice, order u/s.10(6) of the ULC Act was issued on 05.02.2008
authorising the enquiry officer to take over the possession of
the surplus land - Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer took over
the possession of the surplus land on 08.02.2008 by way of
a panchnama - However, it is the case of appellant that the
respondents allegedly took only symbolic possession of the
subject land - Thereafter, the State brought into force the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 with
effect from 27.03.2008 - Writ petition by appellant against
illegal attempts of dispossession - The Single Judge of the
High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the appellant
and held that order u/s.10(6) was void, illegal and bad in
law - However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed
both the appeals filed by the State and thereby set aside the
judgment and order passed by the Single Judge - Correctness:
* Author
1626
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: The issue as to whether actual possession of land declared
excess under the Act has been taken over or not assumes great
significance after the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999
inasmuch as if possession has not been taken over, the proceedings
would abate u/s.4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 and the ownership of
the land, if vested in the State Government u/s.10(3) of the Act,
1976 would be required to be restored to the original land-holder
subject to repayment of any amount that has been paid by the
State Government with respect to such land - The "vesting" in
sub-section (3) of section 10 means vesting of title absolutely
and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person
voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession - 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, 1976 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 - Sub-section (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 - The State has to
establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or
surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5)
of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of
Section 10 - On failure to establish any of those situations, the
landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal
Act, 1999 - In the case on hand, the State Government has not
been able to establish any of those situations - The mere paper
possession would not save the situation for the State Government
unless the State is able to establish by cogent evidence that actual
physical possession of the entire land was taken over by evicting
each and every person from the land - The onus is on the State
to establish that actual physical possession of the excess vacant
land was taken over before the repeal - Hence, the Single Judge
was right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled to get the
benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. [Paras 20, 29, 36,
38, 39]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sub-section (5)
of section 10 and sub-section (6) of section 10 - Statute
contemplates:
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1627
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
Held: On a plain reading of the sub-section (5) of section 10
and sub-section (6) of section 10, it is apparent that the statute
contemplates giving an opportunity to the landholder or any
person in possession of excess vacant land to surrender or
deliver possession thereof to the State Government and for this
purpose provides for giving notice in writing, ordering such person
to surrender or deliver possession of such land - It is only when
pursuant to such notice, such person refuses or fails to comply with
an order under sub-section (5) within a period of thirty days of the
service of notice, that the competent authority is required to take
over possession of the vacant land and for that purpose may use
force, if necessary - Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (6)
are to be resorted to only when there is refusal or non-compliance
of an order under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976
within the prescribed period. [Para 22]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Possession
of subject land - Paper possession:
Held: The dictum, as laid in Hari Ram case, is that where the
possession of the subject land has not been taken over by the
State Government or by any person duly authorised by the State
Government in this behalf or by the competent authority, the
proceedings under the Act would not survive and mere vesting of
the vacant land with the State Government by operation of law,
without actual possession, is not sufficient - To put it in other
words, the mere paper possession would not save the situation
for the State Government unless the State is able to establish
by cogent evidence that actual physical possession of the entire
land was taken over by evicting each and every person from the
land - The onus is on the State to establish that actual physical
possession of the excess vacant land was taken over before the
repeal. [Para 29]
Precedent - Two inconsistent decision of Supreme Court -
The High Court to reconcile and respect both:
Held: If two decisions of this Court appear inconsistent with each
other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other,
but should try to reconcile and respect them both. [Para 35]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Effect
of:
1628
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: The effect of Repeal Act, 1999 is clear - If the landowner
remains in physical possession, then irrespective of his land being
declared surplus and/or entry being made in favour of the State
in revenue records, he will not be divested of his rights - Even if
compensation is received that also will not dis-entitle him to claim
the benefit if compensation is refunded, provided he is in actual
physical possession - Payment of compensation has no co-relation
with the taking of actual physical possession as with the vesting
land compensation becomes payable which can be paid without
taking actual physical possession. [Para 40]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - The propositions of
law governing the issue of possession in context with ss. 10(5)
and 10(6) respectively of the Act, 1976 r/w. s.3 of the Repeal
Act - Summed up:
Held: (1) The Repeal Act, 1999 clearly talks about the possession
being taken u/s.10(5) or s.10(6) of the Act, 1976, as the case may be;
(2) It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent authority
or the State to take possession strictly as permitted in law;
(3) In case the possession is purported to have been taken u/s.10(6)
of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged to look into whether
"taking of such possession" is valid or invalidated on any of the
considerations in law; (4) The possession envisaged u/s.3 of the
Repeal Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only; (5) The mere
vesting of "land declared surplus" under the Act without resuming
"de facto possession" is of no consequence and the land holder is
entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999; (6) The requirement
of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of s.10 respectively
is mandatory - Although the word "may" has been used therein, yet
the word "may" in both the sub-sections should be understood as
"shall" because a Court is obliged to decide the consequences that
the legislature intended to follow from the failure to implement the
requirement; (7) The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3)
of s.10 would not confer any right on the State Government to
have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has
been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999;
(8) The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record that
there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender
and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (6) of s.10
or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of s.10. [Para 41]
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1629
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
Appeal - Intra-Court Appeal - Scope of:
Held: An intra-court appeal is really not a statutory appeal preferred
against the judgment and order of an inferior to the superior Court -
The appeal inter se in a High Court from one court to another is
really an appeal from one coordinate bench to another coordinate
bench and it is for this reason that a writ cannot be issued by
one Bench of the High Court to another Bench of the High Court
nor can even the High Court issue writ to a High Court - Thus,
unlikely an appeal, in general, an intra court appeal is an appeal
on principle and that is why, unlike an appeal, in an ordinary
sense, such as a criminal appeal, where the whole evidence on
record is examined afresh by the appellate court, what is really
examined, in an intra court appeal, is the legality and validity of a
judgment and/or order of the Single Judge and it can be set aside
or should be set aside only when there is a patent error on the face
of the record or the judgment is against the established or settled
principles of law - If two views are possible and a view, which is
reasonable and logical has been adopted by a Single Judge, the
other view howsoever appealing may be to the Division Bench, it
is the view adopted by the Single Judge, which should, normally,
by allowed to prevail. [Para 42]
Jurisdiction - Writ Jurisdiction - Power of writ Court to
determine disputed question of fact:
Held: The disputed questions of fact are not investigated or
adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226
of the Constitution of India - But the mere existence of the disputed
question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of
this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner - In a
case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the
facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the
rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of
fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to
investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular
facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest
of justice - There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to
indicate that the High Court in the proceedings, like the one on
hand, is debarred from holding such an inquiry - The proposition
that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the
ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed
question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by
1630
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
any decision of this Court - A rigid application of such proposition or
to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion
will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory
and ineffective. [Paras 48, 49]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sub-section (5)
of s.10 and sub-section (6) of s.10 - Whether actual physical
possession of excess land is a mixed question of law and fact:
Held: The issue as regards taking over of the actual physical
possession of the excess land in accordance with the provisions of
sub-sections (5) and (6) of s.10 of the Act, 1976 could be said to be
a mixed question of law and fact and not just a question of fact -
Mixed question of law and fact refers to a question which depends
on both law and fact for its solution - In resolving a mixed question
of law and fact, a reviewing court must adjudicate the facts of the
case and decide relevant legal issues at the same time. [Para 54]
Case Law Cited
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [2002] Supp.
4 SCR 517 : (2003) 2 SCC 111; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari
Ram [2013] 2 SCR 301 : (2013) 4 SCC 280; Vipin Chandra Vadilal
Bavishi v. State of Gujarat [2016] 1 SCR 283 : (2016) 4 SCC 531;
Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (Dead) by L.Rs. [2000] Supp. 2 SCR
114 : (2000) 8 SCC 99; State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei
[1967] 2 SCR 625 : AIR 1967 SC 1269; Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda
Municipality (1969) 3 SCC 769 : AIR 1970 SC 602; State of U.P.
& Anr. v. Ehsan & Anr., 2023 INSC 906 : [2023] 13 SCR 905;
Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another v. Bimal Kumar Shah
and Others [2024] 5 SCR 831: (2024) 10 SCC 533 - relied on.
Gajanan Kamlya Patil v. Additional Collector and Competent
Authority (ULC) and Ors. [2014] 1 SCR 1032 : (2014) 12 SCC 523;
State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma [2014] 14 SCR 1451 : (2015)
5 SCC 321; Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v. Deputy Collector and
Competent Authority and Ors. [2012] 2 SCR 219 : (2012) 4 SCC
718; State of Gujarat v. Kamuben, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 4941;
Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab [1962] Supp. 3 SCR 713 :
AIR 1963 SC 395; Sethi Auto Service Station and Another v. Delhi
Development Authority and Others [2008] 14 SCR 598 : (2009) 1
SCC 180; Jasbir Singh Chhabara and Others v. State of Punjab
and Others (2010) 4 SCC 192; State of Uttaranchal and Another v.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1631
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
Sunil Kumar Vaish and Others [2011] 13 SCR 754 : (2011) 8 SCC
670; Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v.
Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society and Others [2018] 11
SCR 310 : (2018) 8 SCC 215; Sita Ram Bhandari Society, New
Delhi v. Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi [2009] 14 SCR 507 :
(2009) 10 SCC 501; Omprakash Verma v. State of A.P. [2010] 15
SCR 302 : (2010) 13 SCC 158; Balmokand Khati Educational and
Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab [1996] 2 SCR 643 : (1996) 4
SCC 212; Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswan [1996] 2 SCR
402 : (1996) 8 SCC 259; State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma
[2014] 14 SCR 1451 : (2015) 5 SCC 321; State of Maharashtra v.
B.E. Billimoria [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 603 : (2003) 7 SCC 336;
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, 2012 AIR SCW 240;
Maharaj Singh v. State of UP [1977] 1 SCR 1072 - referred to.
State of Telangana v. Southern Steels Limited, W.A. 1975 of
2017; The Principal Commissioner v. M. Venkataraman, 2014
SCC OnLine Mad 4505; P. Laxmi Kantha Rao and Others v.
Government Of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1348;
J Sarada Govardhini v. Special Officer and Competent Authority,
Writ Petition No. 9680 of 2006; Gonguluri Srinivasa Sharma and
Anr. v. Government of AP and Ors., Writ Petition No. 28883 of
2011; Dip Co. Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. through Purshottam S. Patel v.
State of Gujarat and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 693; Dip
Co. Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. through Purshottam S. Patel v. State of
Gujarat and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 3034; Privy Council in
Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax, Lahore,
AIR 1940 PC 230 - referred to.
Quinn v. Leathern, 1901 AC 495 at p.506; Privy Council in Alexander
Rodger Charles Carnie v. Comproir D'Escompte De Paris, 1871
Law Reports 3 Privy Council 475 - referred to.
List of Acts
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999; U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950.
List of Keywords
Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999; sub-sections (5) and (6) of s.10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976; Excess vacant land; Possession; Actual
1632
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
possession; Paper possession; de facto possession; Vesting of
the vacant land; Writ Jurisdiction; Disputed question of fact; Mixed
question of law and fact; Intra-Court Appeal; Two inconsistent
decision of Supreme Court; Article 226 of Constitution.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 4526-4527
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2023 of the High
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WA Nos. 665
and 670 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
N.K. Kaul, Mukul Rohatgi, V. Ramesh, Sr. Advs., M/s. Khaitan &
Co., Sanjeev K Kapoor, Aakash Bajaj, Dhritiman Roy, Ms. Sania
Abbasi, R Ashwanth.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Somanadri Goud Katam, Ms. Neha
Agarwal, Vikram, Sirajuddin.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1.
Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are same, the
parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same
judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up
for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common
judgment and order.
2.
".....One of the first and highest duties of all courts is to take care
that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the Suitors, and
when the expression 'the act of the Court' is used, it does not mean
merely the act of the Primary Court, or of any intermediate Court of
appeal, but the act of the Court as a whole, from the lowest Court
which entertains jurisdiction over the matter up to the highest Court
which finally disposes of the case." [Privy Council in Alexander
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1633
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
Rodger Charles Carnie v. Comproir D'Escompte De Paris, 1871 Law
Reports 3 Privy Council 475]
3.
These appeals arise from a common judgment and order passed
by the High Court for the State of Telangana and Hyderabad dated
03.01.2022 in Writ Appeal No. 665 of 2022 and Writ Appeal No. 670
of 2022 respectively by which both the writ appeals filed by the State
came to be allowed thereby setting aside the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowing the
writ petitions filed by the appellants-herein.
4.
The facts giving rise to these appeals may be summarized as under:-
i)
M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation (Now known as
'ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITED'), hereinafter the appellant is a
company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale
of power transformers and other electrical equipment. For the
purpose of establishing its manufacturing unit, the appellant
company had purchased land measuring 1,63,764 (Sq. yards
in Survey Nos 74,75,76, 78, 79) ('Subject Land') and the same
is the subject matter of the present appeals.
ii)
The subject land is situated in Fatehnagar Village Balanagar
Mandal, Rangareddy District.
iii)
Following the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act, 1976'), the appellant
filed a declaration in Form I under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976
whose declaration was taken up as C.C. No. 10571 of 1976
by the special officer and competent authority of urban land
ceiling department for utilization of excess land. The declaration,
which covered the appellant's holdings in Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam, was duly processed by the authorities.
iv)
Lands held by the appellant at Hyderabad are as under:
S.
No
Properties
Area
(in Sq. Mtrs)
1.
Total extent in Sy. Nos- 74/P, 75/P,
76/P, 78 & 79 in Fathenagar (Vg)
163679
2.
Extent covered by GVM road in Sy.
No. 78 & 79 in T.S. No. 3 & 6 of
Block A = 5088 Sq Meters
163679-5088 =
158591
1634
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.
Extent exempted by the Government
u/s 20(1)(a) vide G.O.Ms No. 1729 dt
23.11.82 = 51580.00 Sq meters
158591-51580 =
107011
4.
Extent Exempted u/s 21 under
Housing Scheme in Sy. Nos .74/P,
75/P = 56730.57 Sq Mtrs
10700156730.57 =
50280.43
5.
Total Extent exempted i.e.
(108310.57 Sq Mtrs)
6.
Extent Effected by Roads in Sy.
No. 74/P, 75, 76 as per MCH Plan,
3742.00 Sq Mtrs out of 50283.00 Sq
Mtrs
50280.43-3742 =
46538.43
7.
Surplus extent in Sy.No. 74/P, 75/P &
76/P (Fatehnagar)
46538.43
v)
In respect of the Hyderabad holdings, the appellant's submission
led to the issuance of Government Orders, notably GO Ms. No.
1729 (dated 27 November 1982), whereby the exemptions were
granted under Section 20(1)(a):-
a.
The entire land in Surveys 78 and 79 was exempted on
the ground that a factory had been constructed there;
b.
A portion of the land in Surveys 74, 75 and 76 measuring
approximately 48,859.50 square metres was exempted
subject to the condition that separate industrial structures
be constructed within a prescribed period;
c.
The appellant had also filed a declaration under Section
21(1) of the ULC Act and the same declaration was taken
up as for accommodation of weaker sections to an extent
of 56,730.57 square meters out of the aforesaid land.
Accordingly, permission was accorded by the Special
Officer and Competent Authority under Section 21(1) of
the ULC Act on 04.02.2001. While granting the permission,
a condition was imposed on the appellant that the
construction of the dwelling units shall be for the weaker
sections of the society and the same should be completed
within 5 years. It was alleged that the appellant had failed
to construct the dwelling units within the specified period
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1635
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
thereby violating the condition while granting permission
under Section 21(1) of the ULC Act.
vi)
In respect of the land in Survey Nos. 74, 75 and 76 respectively,
the Government had issued G.O.Ms No. 303 dated 07.04.1990
withdrawing the exemption granted earlier under G.O.Ms.
No. 1729.
vii) The stance of the Respondents is that the failure on the part
of the appellant to utilize the 48,859.50 sq. m. portion in the
prescribed manner led to the withdrawal of the exemption for
that land, as affected by GO Ms. No. 303. On April 7, 1992,
the Special Officer and the Competent Authority for Urban
Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, issued a draft statement under
Sections 8(1) and 8(3) of the Act, 1976 respectively, provisionally
categorizing the appellant as holding surplus land amounting
to 1,01,645 sq. m.
viii) Later, on 03.04.2005, the Special Officer issued an order under
Section 8(4) determining that the excess vacant land in the
Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration measured 46,538.53 sq. m. of
this total, the appellant was entitled to retain 1,000 sq. m. under
Section 4(1)(b) of the ULC Act, leaving a balance of 45,538.43
sq. m. as vacant hand.
ix)
Aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2005, the appellant
approached the Appellate authority by way of an appeal under
Section 33 bearing no. Hyd/11/2005. The Appellate authority vide
order dated 28.07.2005, set aside the order appealed against
and remanded the matter to the special officer and competent
authority for fresh computation. After due enquiry, a revised order
under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act and final Statement under
Section 9 of the ULC Act were issued on 20.03.2007 which
determined the surplus at 46,538. 43 sq. mts. which was separate
from the land exempted under Section 21 of the ULC Act.
x)
It is the case of the Respondents that the Government of Andhra
Pradesh issued a notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC
Act, in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette inviting claims from persons
interested in the Subject land measuring 46,538.43 sq. mts.
It is also the stance of the Respondents that the said gazette
notification was never challenged by the appellant.
1636
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
xi)
After completion of such computation, notification under
Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published in the Andhra
Pradesh State Gazette dated 03.10.2007, wherein an extent
of 46,538.43 square meters in survey nos. 74/P, 75/P and 76/P
of the Fatehnagar Village in Balanagar mandal was declared
to have been acquired by the State Government, with effect
from 12.07.2007. It is the case of the appellant-herein that the
aforesaid notification failed to note that the surplus land was only
to the extent of 45,538.43 sq. mts. and not 46,538.43 sq. mts.
xii) It is the case of the appellant that the Competent Authority
purportedly issued a notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act
dated 05.01.2008 directing the appellant-herein to surrender the
excess vacant land within thirty days. Further, according to the
Respondents since the appellant's factory was closed due to
lockout on 05.01.2008 the said notice was affixed on the main
door of the factory premises on 08.01.2008. The operative
portion of the notice is reproduced herein below:-
"Whereas the lands in sy.Nos. 75/p, 75/p, 76/p
to an extent of£ 46538.43 Sq/Mtrs. Fatehnagar
vg., Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
Marripalen vg. Visakhapatnam District in Sy. No.
59/3, 8437.48 Sq. Mtrs. (B Category) equivalent
to 12,656.22 Sq. Mtrs. (C- Category) and which
are in your possession are deemed to have vested
absolutely in the State Government free from all
encumbrance with effect from the 12.07.2007 under
Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Urban land
(Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of
1976) vide Notification No. G 1/10571/76, published
at pages 1 of part-II Extraordinary of the Andhra
Pradesh Gazette No. 288 dated 3.10.2007. Now,
therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (5) of section 10 of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act, 33
of 1976), I hereby order you to surrender/deliver
possession of the said land to Sri S.A. Khader,
Deputy Tahsildar of this office within thirty days of
the service of this Notice."
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1637
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
xiii) According to the Respondents due to non-compliance of the
aforementioned notice, order under Section 10(6) of the ULC
Act was issued on 05.02.2008 authorising the enquiry officer to
take over the possession of the Surplus Land. Accordingly, the
Enquiry Officer took over the possession of the surplus land on
08.02.2008 to the extent of 46,538.43 Square Meters in Survey
Nos. 74/P, 75P and 76P in Fatehnagar Village, Balanagarmandal,
Ranga Reddy District.
5.
The operative part of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Notice U/s 10(5) of the Act was issued to the M/s A.P.E.E.C
Fathenagar Balangar Mandal, RR Dist. asking them to
deliver the possession of the following surplus land withing
30 days from the date of the service of notice u/s 10(5)
of the Act.
Sl.
No.
Description of
the Property
Location
Extent in Sq. Mtrs
1
Sy. Nos. 74/P,
75/P, 76/P
Fathenagar
vg. Balanagar,
Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District.
Marriapalem vg.
Visakhapatnam
District
46538.43 Sq Mtrs
8437.48 Sq Mts
(B-Category)
equivalent to
12656.22 Sq Mtrs
(C Category)
The 30-days time given in the notice U/s 10(5) of the Act
expired on 01-10-2008 buy they failed to deliver possession
before the expiry date. Hence Sri SA Khader Enquiry officer
of this office is authorized to take over the possession of
land in question U/s 10(6) of the Act and hand over the
same to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned and report
compliance within one week positively."
xiv) According to the Respondents, the enquiry officer in pursuance
of the order dated 05.02.2008 took over the actual physical
possession of the surplus Subject Vacant Land on 08.02.2008
by way of a panchnama. It is the case of the Respondents that
1638
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the panchnama was prepared by the Deputy Tahsildar and
enquiry officer in the presence of three panchas and the said
possession was taken over by drawing a valid panchnama. The
relevant extracts of the panchnama is reproduced herein below:-
Sl.
No.
Panchas Name
Aged
Occupation
Residence
1
Ramaiah
50
Business
Fathenagar
2
Yashwanadham
45
Coolie
Fathenagar
3
Jagadeesh
25
Carpenter
Fathenagar
We three panchas under the call from Deputy
Tahsildar and Inquiry Officer, Urban Land Ceiling,
Hyderabad present at site at Rangareddy District,
Balanagar Mandai, Fathonagm: village limits sy.nos.
74/8, 75/8and 76/f3. There the Deputy Tahsildar over
the said survey nos. land holding the ownership
rights their land under Urban land ceiling act 1976
(46538.435 mtrs.) is identified as excess land vide
Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling Hyderabad
orders No.F1/G1/10571/71/76 dated : 5.2.08 through
the said land owners are excess land owners as
confirmed said. Such excess land ext.46538.42
sq.mtrs. handover to government, the said ceiling
act sec.1 0(5) the file no.F1/G1/10571/76/76 dated
: 5-1-08 through to the land owners issued the
notice. But according to that notice the said land
though the stipulated is completed, the said excess
land not handed over to the government Hence in
the said ceiling act sec.1 0(6) tl1e said excess land
to take possession by the government the Deputy
Tahsildar permitting to the Inquiry Officer file no.F1/
G1/10571/76 dated : 9-2-08 through the Special
Officer issued the orders. Hence the inquiry officer
according to the orders, today i.e. on 8-2-08 in the said
survey nos. 46538.43 sq.mts. excess land according
to sub division sketch after fixing the boundaries
by the surveyor, he himself personally to take into
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1639
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
govt. possession in our panchas presence taken
into possession. Hence this excess land from today
onwards is in the govt. possession as confirmed.
This excess land vacant/making plots /made the
constructions/structures. This panchnama took place
in our presence is true. Read over in Telugu, as all the
above contents are true believing we signed below."
6.
It is the case of the appellant-herein that the purported "panchnama"
dated 08.02.2008 was prepared in a printed form, and the
Respondents allegedly took symbolic possession of the Subject
Land. Admittedly, the actual physical possession of the Subject Land
is with the appellant till date. A copy of the purported panchnama, a
printed Form with gaps filled in, was handed over to the appellant
for the first time on 14.09.2010, when the writ petition was filed
before the High Court.
7.
On 22.04.2008 the State of Andhra Pradesh brought into force the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short,
"the Repeal Act, 1999") with effect from 27.03.2008.
8.
According to the appellant in or around 2009, the Respondents
attempted to take action under the purported acquisition proceedings
in respect of the Subject Land. The appellant filed a writ petition
before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 11293 of 2009, against
illegal attempts of dispossession by the Tahsildar. The High Court
issued notice in the said Writ Petition and granted interim injunction
in favour of the appellant.
9.
According to the appellant the copies of the purported Section
10(5) Notice, Section 10(6) Order and the panchnama (collectively,
"Section 10 Notices") were handed over to the appellant for the first
time on 14.09.2010.
10. On 20.09.2010 the appellant preferred another writ petition being
Writ Petition No. 23477 of 2010, inter alia assailing the purported
panchnama. In Writ Petition No. 23477 of 2010, the High Court
directed that pending further orders, the appellant shall not be
dispossessed from the Subject Land. 10. The learned Single Judge
adjudicated both the writ petitions filed by the appellants and allowed
those vide common judgment and order dated 03.01.2022. The
learned Single Judge held as under:-
1640
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"From the sum and substance of the above said judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other Courts, it
is clear that the official respondents after issuing notices
under Section 10(1) and 10(3) have to issue notice
under Section 10(5) directing the party to surrender the
possession of the land, within a period of thirty days, and
if voluntary possession of the same is not given, then the
official respondents are obligated to issue notice under
Section 10(6) to the petitioner and then take possession.
The above judgments also make it abundantly clear that
mere issuance of the notice under Section 10(3) does
not automatically entitle the official respondents to take
possession of the notified lands, but the authorities have
to necessarily issue notice under Section 10(5) to the
land owner or any other interested person. The Courts
have also held that the taking over of the possession
has to be actual physical possession and not mere de
jure possession. Having regard to the above laid proposition
of law, the question now before this Court is to see as to
whether the notifications issued under Section 10(5) and
10(6) by the authorities and the panchnama stand to the
legal scrutiny of this Court?
31. The documents filed, more particularly, the notice
issued under Section 10(6) of the Act reveals that in the
said notice, two dates are mentioned i.e. 05.02.2008 and
08.02.2008.
32. Even if the contention of the official respondents that
the 10(5) notice dated 05.01.2008 is sent through registered
post is taken to be true, it will take minimum two or three
days time for the said notice to reach the office of the
petitioner. As per the requirement of ULC Act, the time
period of thirty days is prescribed for issuance of 10(6)
notice after issuance of 10(5) notice. If that be so, the
10(6) notice should be dated 08.02.2008. But a perusal of
the 10(6) notice shows that two dates are written on the
said notice i.e. the dates of 05.02.2008 and 08.02.2008,
which clearly shows that the date 10(6) notice has been
prepared even before the expiry of 30 days. Moreover, in
the said notice it is mentioned as under:
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1641
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
"The 30-days time given in the notice U/s 10(5) of the
act expired on 01-10-2008 but they failed to deliver
possession before the expiry date. Hence Sri. S.A.
Khader, Enquiry Officer of this office is authorized to
take over possession of land in question U/s 10(6)
of the Act and hand over the same to the Mandal
Revenue Officer concerned and report compliance
within one week positively."
(Emphasis Added)
33. The above extracted portion of the 10(6) notice
clearly reveals that the notices are back-dated for the
purpose of preparing the said notice and panchanama.
It is beyond comprehension and not understandable as
to how the date of 01.10.2008 can be mentioned while
calculating the expiry date of thirty days from either
05.01.2008 or 08.01.2008, as the case may be. Evidently
the person who was preparing the 10(6) notice did so
after the Repeal Act was enacted and adopted by the
then Government of Andhra Pradesh. Even in the counter
filed by the Special Officer & Competent Authority, it is
stated as under:
"18............ A notice U/s. 10(5) of the Act was issued
on 5-1-08 asking the declarant to surrender the
excess vacant, land within (30) days from the date of
its receipts. The company was under lockout, hence
the notice issued U/s 10(5) of the Act was affixed on
the main door on 8-1-08. The time stipulated in the
notice expired but the declarant failed to surrender
the land. Hence order U/s 10(6) of the Act was
issued on 5-2-08, authorizing the Enquiry Officer
of this office to take over possession of the surplus
land and hand it over to the MRO, concerned. The
Enquiry Officer of this office took over possession of
the surplus land on 8-2-2008 to an extent of 46538.43
sq.mtrs. in Sy. Nos. 74/p, 75/p and 76/p, in Fathenagar
Village, Balanagar Mandal and Special Officer, ULC,
Visakhapatnam accordingly took over possession of
the surplus land to an extent of 8437.48 sq. mtrs.
1642
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in Sy. No. 59/3, Marripalem village, Visakhapatnam
on 12-3-2008."
(Emphasis Added)
34. Even if the above averments made in the counter are
taken to be true and correct, the very admission on the
part of the official respondents that the notice was served
on 08.01.2008 and Section 10(6) notice is issued on
05.02.2008 confirms that the mandatory period of 30 days
between Sections 10(5) and 10(6) notices is not met and
the same has to be held void, illegal and bad. Besides,
when pointed out by this Court about the discrepancies
with regard to the dates mentioned in the 10(6) notice and
also the non-service of the notice under Section 10(5) to
the petitioner in-person, the learned Special Government
Pleader tried to brush out the same as some clerical
errors and argued that the same has to be ignored as
a minor procedural lapse. The two dates mentioned in
10(6) notice belie the claim of the official respondents
that they have taken over the physical possession of
the subject land on 08.02.2008. There is no whisper or
explanation forthcoming from the authorities as to how
the date of 01.10.2008 is mentioned in the 10(6) notice
while calculating the expiry of 30 days period from either
05.01.2008 or 08.01.2008. Even a perusal of the 10(5)
notice shows that the same has not been served on the
petitioner, but was affixed on the gate of the factory only
on 08.01.2008. There is no signature on the said notice
as to who has received the same except a name has
been scribbled (which is not legible). Having regard to
the overwhelming evidence to show that the physical
possession of the land is still with the petitioner, this Court
is of the considered view that the valuable rights of the
parties cannot be allowed to be defeated on the basis of
the documents prepared after the Repeal Act has come
into force and the stand of the Government that the dates
shown in the documents are only clerical errors, cannot
be accepted and is hereby rejected. In the absence of
any cogent and convincing evidence or document to show
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1643
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
that the Government has taken physical possession of
the subject land as contended or any other material to
show that the notices under Sections 10(3), 10(5) and
10(6) were validly prepared and served on the petitioner,
both the Section 10(6) notice and panchanama dated
08.02.2008 have to be taken as a bogus and fabricated
one, prepared after the Repeal Act come into force. The
material placed before this Court clinchingly establishes
that the physical possession of the subject premises
has not been taken over by the official respondents as
claimed and absolutely there is no material to show that
the subject land is in their physical possession even as
on date. The panchanama dated 08.02.2008, on which
the independent witnesses are stated to have affixed
their signatures, relied by the official respondents to
substantiate that the officials went to the site and taken
physical possession, do not contain either the addresses
of the panchas or their description and do not instill any
confidence in the Court that they are genuine.