Srigopal Inani v. The District Collector,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-09. Srigopal Inani v. The District Collector,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
t [ 3484 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 21917 OF 2010 Between: Srigopal lnani, S/o. Bansilal lnani, aged about6Tyears, R/o. 15-9-56, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad - 500 012 ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad - 500 001 2. The Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad - 500 001. 3. The tvlandal Revenue Officer, Ameerpet Mandal, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more pdrticularly in the nature of writ of [Vlandamus declaring the declaring the proceedings dated 14. O7. 2O1O in.
proceedings No: E1tN2t461/09, issued by the 2nd respondent:as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to issue no objection certificate to the petitioner for his Iand adm. 4546. 77 sq. mts situated at Survey No. 1 22 ( Old ) corresponding to new survey No. 1 221P, correlating to town survey No. 2/P, Ward No. 3, Block No. D of Bahlookhanguda Village, Ameerpet Mandal, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 27879 OF 2010) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue interim directions to the respondent No. 2 to forthwith issue no objection certificate pursuant to petitioner application dated 28. 01. 2009 in respect of his land adm. 4546. 77 sq. mt:; situated at Survey No. 122 ( old ) corresponding to new survey No. 1221P, Correlating to town survey No. 2lP, Ward No. 3, Block No.
D of Bahloolkhanguda Village, Ameerpet Mandal, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. l. A. NO: 2 OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 27880 OF 2010) Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the oceration of proceedings dated 14-07-2010 in proceedings No. E1tN2t461/09, issued by the 2nd respondent in respect of petitioner's land adm. 4546. 77 sq. mtr; situated at Survey No. 122 ( old ) corresponding to new survey No. 1221P, Correlating to town survey No. 2lP, Ward No. 3, Block No. D of Bahloolkhanguda Village, Ameerpet Mandal, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRIVIVEK JAIN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G. UDAYA BHASKAR, GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER ) COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA IN THE HIGH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN IIIRIT PETITION No. 2L9l7 OF 2O1O DATE: 09. 01. 2o26 BETWEEN: Inani' SrigoPal ..
Petitioner AND The District Collector, and two others' Hyderabad Respondents ORDER Heard Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Bhaskar, learned Government Pleader Sri G. Udaya for Revenue and perused the record' 2. The present rvrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the tbllowing prayer viz. , "..... maA be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particuiarly in the nature of utrit of mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 14-07-2010 in proceedings no. E1/N2/461/09, tssued by the 2nd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequentlg direct the respondent no. 2 fo issue no objection certifi"cate to the petitioner hi:s land adm. 4546. 77 for sq. mts sttuated at Surueg No. 122 (Old) corresponciing to new Surueg No. 122/P, conelating to toun surueA No. 2/P, Ward No. 3, Block No. D of Bahloolkhanguda Village, Ameerpet Mandal, Ameerpet, Hgderabad, Pass such other and further orders a.
s this Hon'ble Court mag deem ftt and proper in tLrc facts and Circumstances of the case. 3. This writ petition is liled challenging the order dated l4. o7. itoto issued by respondent No. 2, which rejected his application for a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for the land admear;uring 4546. 77 sq. mts. situated in Sy. No. 122 (OId), now Sy. No. t22lP, correlating to T. S. No. 2/P of Bahloolkhanguda Village, Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderabad, despite the petitioner's establirshed title, earlier binding orders and admitted Goverr. ment records. Brief f,acts and chronolory of litigations 4. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondent authorities in proposing to handover the newly constructed 175O sq. yds. of the petitioner's $AMB,\Y tenements, raised over land, to encroachers without restoring the balance extent of 4546. i,7 sq. mts. to him and without issuing the required NOC in respect of sy. No. l22 (Old), now Sy. No. l22lP, correlating to T. S. N6.
2/P of Bahloolkhanguda village, Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderrrbad. 5. The petitioner along with his family members purch;rsed land ad-measuring Ac. 10-02 gts. situated in Bahlortkhanguda Village, Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderabad, through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2219 of Lg66 dated 13. 09. t966, after securing permission under the i! , A. p. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'Tenancy Act, 1950J. The said village later came within the Urban Agglomeration Limits and the petitioner applied for exemption under the Urban Land (ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'ULC Act, L976'l' The Government, after due consideration, granted exemption to an extent of Ac. 9-28 gts. under section 2o(1)(a) of the ULC Act, Lg76 uide G. o. Ms. No. L52 dated 04. 02. 1982. These developments led to a series of litigations, which are set out in chronological order hereunder: 1. 1st Round of litiqatioa!
The State sought to acquire the land for providing house sites to weaker sections. The petitioner,s family members challenged the section 4(1) Notification dated 2l-ol-1982 by filing w. P. No. 133O of Lgg2. By order dated 04-08- 1982, the said notification was quashed.. The Government preferred W'A'No'918 of 1982; however, the appeal was dismissed, thereby affrrming the order of the learned Single Judge' ii. 2 Round of litieation: The Joint Collector initiated suo "d motuproceedingscancellingthepattagrantedinfavour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W. P. No. looS5oflgS3. Thewritpetitionwasallowedon 18-03- 1986, setting aside the patta cancellation. The Government carried the matter in W'A'No' 1'O2O of 1986, but the appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the petitioner's title and possession' 4 iii. 3. ,1 Round of litieation: The Government issued G. O. Ms. No.
14 dated O9-O 1- 199 1 cancelling the exemption earlier granted under Section 20(1)(a) of the ULC Act L976. The petitioner challenged the said G. O. in W. P. No. L732 of 1991, and the writ petition was allowed on 07-08-1995, wherein, the cancellation was set aside. The Government again preferred W. A. No. 1556 of 1995, which was also dismissed, thereby fully restoring the exemption and confirming the petitioner's rights. 1V 4th Round of litisation: Certain private individuals encroach. ed upon the petitioller's land and instituted O. S. No. 425 of 1991 before the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, obtaining ex parte interim injunction in t. A. No. 791 of L99L. The petitioner contested the matter, and by order dated 2L-O8-1991, the injunction petition was dismissed. Subsequently, the encroachers preferred CMA. No. 4 4 of 1991 before the Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, which too was dismissed on 2l-10- 199 1. v. Sth Round of litieation: The petitioner filed LGC. No.
2 of 199L, impleading the District Collector as respondent No. 49. After detailed consideration, the LGC was allowed by order dated 15-02-1993. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was put into actual and physical possession of the land under a panchanama dated O7- 11-1993. The land grabbers questioned the said order in W. P. No. 615O of 1993 and obtained interim protection; however, upon the petitioner,s vacate apfication, the interim orders were vacated. ,a Accordingly, W. P. No. 6150 of 1993 was dismissed on and 16-11-2001, affirming the petitioner's possession title. the The petitioner challenged vi. 6th of tion: in dated 2L-O5-1996 fresh acquisition proceedings was closed on 16-10- W. P. No.
13886 of L996, which to 2OOO on the basis of the Government's assurance pay compensation and pass arl award within six a months; however, no enquiry was held' no award was passed, and the proceedings lapsed' Meanwhile' the petitioner was denied police protection against re- to encroachments' encroachment, leading . further Pursuant to private negotiations' the petitioner a consent letter sq' yds through relinquished 15OO the Collector took possession dated 11-03-2003, and' under a panchanama dated 14-10-2003' Petitioner yds under the later relinquished an additional 250 sq' local 23-O7-2OO4' and the MLA VAMBAY scheme on on 28-07-of balance land requested restoration the houses on the surrendered 2OO4. Despite constructing the encroachers land, the authorities neither shifted sq. mts to the nor restored the remaining 4546. 77 petitioner. vii. 7ft Round of Litieation: The encroachers filed O. S.
No-4581 of 2OO7 before the V Junior Civil Judge' in Hyderabad, and secured an ex parte injunction and The petitioner contested' I. A. No. 11B4 of 2OO7' the counter' admitted respondent No-3, in its possession petitioner's ownership, the LGC order and 6 delivered on 07-1L-1993, the proposed acquisition, disposal of W. P. No. 13886 of 1996,lapse of proceedings, and the petitioner's relinquishment under the VAMBAy scheme. The interim iniunction was vacated on 2T -Og- 2OO7, and the suit was later dismissed as not pressed on O6-05-2013. r] 6- The rejection of the request for issuance of a Noc dated 14-o7. 2oLo forms the subject matter of w. p. No. 2lgLT of 2o10. Parall:lly, steps were initiated by the official respondents to handc'ver the constructed tenements, raised on the land relinqr:ished under the vAMBAy scheme, to encroachers without restoring the balance extent or issuing the Noc, which action is under challenge in W. p. No. 2lgtg of 2010.
Contentions on behalf of the petitioner 7 - Le,lrned counsel for the petitioner contends that his brothers purchased Ac. 1o. o2 gts. of land in Bahloolkhanguda under a registered sale deed dated 13. 09. 1966 after securing necessary permission under the Tenancy Act, 19SO, and his name was duly mutated in revenue records. A minor portion, Ac. o. l'tr gts, was acquired for a road in 1968. The land later came under the Urban Land Ceiling regime, but the Goverrrment granted exemption for Ac. 9-28 gts. under section 20(1)(a) of the ULC Act uide G. o. Ms. No. 152, dated o4. o2. Lgg2. . l .. / 8. The petitioner submits that the respondents and private individuals repeatedly interfered with his rights, resulting in prolonged litigation. The attempted acquisition under Gaz,ette Notilication dated 2L. O1. 1982 was quashed by this Court in W. P. No. 1330 of 1982 and the order was affirmed in W-A. No. 918 of L982. The suo motu cancellation of patta by the Joint Collector was also set aside in W.
P. No. 10O85 of 1983, which was affirmed in w. A-No. Io20 0f 1986. Likewise, cancellation of exemption under the ULC Act, L976 through G. O-Ms. No-14, dated 09. 01. 1991 was set aside in W. P. No. 1732 of L991, aflirmed in W. A. No. 1556 of 1995. 9. The petitioner further contends that the private individuals unlawfully occupied parts of the land through interim orders in O. S. No. 425 of lggl, which upon contest were vacated- Thereafter, the petitioner succeeded in LGC No. 2 of L992 before the Special Court under the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, which by order, dated 15. 02. r. 993 directed eviction of the encroachers. Consequent upon dismissal of W. P. No. 615O of Lgg3, possession was delivered to the petitioner on 07. 1 1. 1993. 10. The petitioner contends that despite regaining possession, the respondents neither protected the land nor acted on his complaints of renewed encroachments. Instead, the I \: \, 8 \ authorities issued proceedings dated 21. 05.
L996 seeking to acquirr: 6010 sq. mts. of the land. In W. P. No. 13886 of 1996, the State represented before this Court that compensation would be paid and an award passed, Ieading to disposal of the Writ Petition on 16. 10. 2000. However, no award was passed, no compe:rsation was paid and the acquisition proceedings lapsed. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that adjoining land of 33,998 sq. mts. was also sought to be acquirt:d through separate notifications, compensation for which was awarded under proceedings dated 3L. O7. 2OOL. Certairr disputes arising therefrom were resolved by the civil Courts, while reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is still pending. L2. The petitioner contends that since the authorities could not c,rmplete acquisition and were unable to remove encroar:hers, they initiated private negotiations to settle the matter. The respondents persuaded the petitioner to surrender 15OO s;q. yds. out of 6010 sq. mts.
for providing housing to weaker sections, assuring ttrat the balance land would be immediately handed back with an Noc. Possession of the said 15OO s,1. yds. was taken under a panchnama dated 14. 10. 2003. on the intelpntion of ttre iocal MLA, an additionar 250 sq. yds. r'' -was also surrendered subject to agreed conditions. Thereafter, construction of VAMBAY tenements was completed. 13. The petitioner contends that despite completion of the of buildings, the respondents are delaying the shifting encroachers into the newly constructed units and are the balance attempting to allot the tenements without returning extent of 4546. 77 sq. mts. or issuing the promised NOC. The rejection of his NOC apptication, dated L4. O7. 2OLO, on grounds that the land is Government land or surplus [and, is stated to be arbitrary, contrary to the recoid and reflective of malafides. L4. The petitioner asserts that even in o. s. No. 4581 of 2OO7 hled by the encroachers, respondent Nos.
l and 3 unequivocally admitted in their counters that the land admeasuring 6010 sq. mts. belongs to the petitioner and that possession was delivered to him in compliance with orders in LGC No. 2 of 1992. Such admissions, according to the petitioner, render the Government's later stand whotly unsustainable- 15. The petitioner submits that unless restrained by this Court, the respondents' attempt to handover the newly constructed tenements to encroachers, without honouring their commitments and without restoring the balance land, will seriously prejudice his rights. The petitioner with no other efficacious remedy available has invoked the extraordinary 'r{ 10 jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Conte:ntions on behalf the respondents 16. The learned Government Pleader submits that the subje<:t land is Government property having been consistently recoried in the Town Survey Land Register as a G-Tank (Government tank-bed) and correlated to old Sy. No.
61 and new Sy. No. 122 of Bahloolkhanguda Village, and that the classilication of the land as shgamalalstnta Shikam patta in the revenrte records demonstrates its character as a water body, incape. ble of conferring proprietary rights on any private indiviclual, as shikam lands are merely seasonal cultivation permis;sions and not alienable patta lands. It is therefore contended that the alleged patta or sale transaction relied upon by the petitioner is irregular, void and. incapable of conferring title. L7. The respondents contend that such improper entries were already cancelled by the Joint collector in 1983, treating the larrd as tank-bed land and that the petitioner's claim is an attempt to take advantage of ambiguous historic entries while ignoring the consistent character of the land as a water body. 18. The respondents further contend that the petitioner,s claim i,s clprided by pending litigation, particularly, O. S. No.
45g1 of 2OO7, wherein hut dwellers have laid claim and secured interim orders. Though the injunction was subsequently vacated, the very pendency of the civil suit demonstrates that title is disputed, and in the face of such subsisting civil proceedings, the request for issuance of an NOC cannot be entertained, as the State cannot certify a private claim when adjudication over competing claims is still pending before a Civil Court. 19. The respondents also contend that the subject land forms part of surplus tand declared under the ULC Act, L976, pursuant to the petitioner's owrr declaration in which he included even the tank-bed area in Sy. No. L22 as if it were his private land; that the exemption earlier granted under Section 2O(1)(a) of the ULC Act, L976 was cancelled for violation of conditions, and notwithstanding the repeal of the Act, the earlier classification and the Government'S claim over the tank-bed land survive, particularly becaus" land is recorded as ,th.
Government land in the Town Survey Register, which has attained f-rnality under Sections 13 and 14 of the A. P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. 2C. The respondents further contend that the decision to issue or refuse a NOC is an administrative function falling within the discretionary domain of the competent authorities L2 constituted under G. O. Ms. No. 2111 and G. O. Ms. No. 93. It is submir:ted that the NOC Committee considered the petitioner's applicertion and rejected it by an endorsement dated L4. O7. '. 2,010. The respondents, therefore, submit that the Court, in ex:rcise of judicial review, cannot interfere with a discretionary administrative decision taken bona fide and supported by material on record. 21.
The respondents contend that in view of binding judiciat precedents emphasising obligation of the State and all authorities, including Courts, to protect water bodies, tanks and n:rtural resources, no private rights can be recognised contrary to the environmental and public-trust obligations of the SLete. Reliance is placed on the directions issued in W. P. No. 7O43 of 2OIl mandating protection and restoration of tanks zmd prohibiting recognition of encroachments upon such lands. 22. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 23.. In view of the material placed before this Court and the settled legal position governing the dispute, the impugned order cannot be sustained for the following reasons: I. Firuilitv of Judicial determinations and bindine effect of the LGC)Judement on perusal of the record, it discloses that the petitioner's title and possession over the land in sy. No. 122 has been consistently upheld in earlier rounds of litigation.
The cancellation of patta by the Joint Collector was set aside in w. P. No. 1OO85 of 1983 and upon appeal the w. A. No. 102O of 1986 was dismissed, confirming the petitioner's rights. Similarly, the cancellation of the ULC exemption was set aside in w. P. No. 1732 of 1991 and upon appeal w. A. No. 1556 of 1995 was also dismissed. Significantly, in L. G. C. No. 2 of L992, the Special Court, upon full-fledged trial, decreed the petitioner's title and ordered eviction of encroachers. The State, being referred to as respondent No. 49 in those proceedings, has allowed the decree to attain frnality. The petitioner was formalLy inducted into possession on 07. 1 1. 1993 under a panchanama and a Form-VII Certificate issued by the competent authority- The dismissal of w. P. No. 6150 0f 1993 removed the cloud over the decree. In view of these judicial pronouncements, the state cannot at this Stage plead that the land as Government land or Tank-Bed.
Any such plea amounts to a collateral challenge to final judgments, which is impermissible and contrary to the rule of finality. I I '{ L4 II IS S to r-he ULQ Act. 1976 (Repeal Actl It is pertinent to note that the respondents,reliance on the ULC proceedings is misplaced. The exemption granted under G. o. Itrls. No. l52 was restored by virtue of the Judgment in w. P. Irto-L732 of 1991, and this position is borne out by the material papers. After the repeal of the uLC Act, 19z6, by the state Repeal Act, no vesting or surplus declaration survives in law, uLnless possession was already taken. Further, the record disclo,ses that no such possession was ever taken, on the contre-ry, the petitioner continued to be in possession and the state itself time and again treated the subject land as private land vrhile negotiating for relinquishment. Thus, invocation of 'surphrs land' is legally untenable. III. It is to be noted that the responclents cannot prace reliance on the pendency of o. S. No.
4sg1 of 2ooz rrled by hut dwellers, as the Injunction Applicatio n uid. e I. A. No. 1 rB4 of 2oo1 was dismissed after thorough consideration. Moreover, the counte:rs filed by respondent Nos. l and 3 in that very suit unequirocally admit as hereunder: ^/ i. flrafthe petitioner is the owrrer of the land admeasuring 601O sq. mts, ii. that the petitioner was placed in possession pursuant to the LGC decree of 1993, iii. that L75O sq. yds. were taken from the petitioner for VAMBAY housing, iv. and that the remaining land belonged to the petitioner. When the State itself has admitted the petitioner's title, the subsequent pendency of the suit cannot be cited as a ground to deny an NOC to the petitioner. Thus, a suit filed by encroachers cannot derogate from judicial decrees or the State's own admissions. IV. Leqitimate expectation arisine from Governmental assurances On perusal of the record, it reflects that the respondents particularly, respondent Nos.
l and 3 entered into negotiations with the petitioner and obtained voluntary relinquishment of 15OO sq. yds. , followed by an additional 250 sq. yds. , for the purpose of constructing houses under the VAMBAY scheme. The panchanama dated 14- 10. 2003 and related correspondence establish the fact that the said relinquishment was premised on the solemn assurance that the remaining land would be restored to the petitioner along with an NOC' The State having induced the petitioner to alter his position and part with valuable land for a public scheme, is now bound by the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory t estoppel. The respondents cannot approbate and reprobate by taking the benefit of the said relinquishr4ent while withholding the return of the balance land. V. T. :re impuqned order Suffers from non-appli and arbitrariness The endorsement dated 14. O7.
2OlO rejecting the petitioner's application for NOC st-ates that t-he land is 'Government land'and 'surplus lanrl', u'ithout considering the followirrg: i- the binding Judgments of this Court and the Special Court, ii. the State's own admissions in prior proceedings and counters, iii. the panchanamas evidencing delivery of possession, iv. the relinquishment undertaken for the public scheme, and v. ' the requirement- of fair dealing in administrative action. A decision that ignores relevant material, relies on grounds already rejected by competent Courts and seeks to unsettl:d rights, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and the conduct of the respondents in repeatedly shifting, stands, failing to h. onour their commitments, and perpett,a. dng rincertainty over a matter concluded decades . ,{, / -. ' earlier, display a lack of bona fi. des and non-application of mind. 24.
Therefore, considering the statutory consequences of the ULC Repeal Act, the admissions of the respondents, and the equities arising from the relinquishment and negotiations, this court holds that the impugned orcler cannot be sustained. The denial of NOC is arbitrary, contrary to binding decrees, and violative of the petitiorler's rights. "' ' Conclusion 25. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the impugned order dated L4. O7. 2010, issued by respondent No. 2, is hereby quashed and set aside. 26. Accordingly, ttre present Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. absolute as stated above. has been made That the Rule Nisi KUMAR SINGH' on THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH Witness the HON'BLE Six' Thousand and TwentY Ninth DaY of January, Two this FridaY, the \ UNA RAO S REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To Road, HYderabad District' 1.
The District Collector, Hyderabad - 500 001 _ Hyderabad Nampally Station Road, 2. The Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, 500 001. Mandal, Ameerpet, Hyderabad' officer, Ameerpet 3. The Mandal Revenue [OPUCI SRI VIVEK JAIN' Advocate 4. One CC to 5TwoCCstoGPforRevenue,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. IOUTI 6. Two CD CoPies MP GJP \* ,-;d I I HIGH COURT DATED:09/01 12026 $ 1 1 r[8 2026 * -l OR ER WP. No. 21 917 of 2010 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.