M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION [APPELLANT(S)] Vs.THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC. [RESPONDENT(S)]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS 4526-4527 OF 2024
(2JB, J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan JJ., delivered by J. B. Pardiwala J.)
The appeals arise from a common judgment by the Telangana High Court, overturning a Single Judge’s decision that had favored the appellants. The case involves ECE Industries Limited (formerly A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation), a manufacturer of power transformers and electrical equipment. The company had purchased 1,63,764 sq. yards of land in Fatehnagar, Rangareddy District, for its manufacturing unit. Following the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the company filed a declaration under Section 6(1) for the regulation of excess land. The authorities processed this declaration as C.C. No. 10571 of 1976, covering holdings in Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam. The appeals challenge the High Court’s decision, which allowed the State’s writ appeals and set aside the earlier ruling. Citing the Privy Council’s judgment in Rodger v. Comproir D’Escompte De Paris (1871), the Court reiterated its duty to ensure no injustice is caused through judicial actions.
The appellant argues that the impugned judgment is flawed as it overlooks the statutory requirement to issue and properly serve notices under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act. The judgment ignores precedents like Hari Ram and Southern Steels Ltd., which establish the necessity of such notices. The appellant contends that the Section 10(5) Notice and Section 10(6) Order were neither contemporaneously served nor validly executed. The appellant only became aware of them in 2010, years after their alleged issuance. There are discrepancies in dates and procedural lapses, including failure to serve notice properly and reliance on a dubious Panchnama. The appellant maintains that possession of the land remains with them, as acknowledged by the Respondents, and thus, the acquisition proceedings stand abated under the Repeal Act. Citing multiple court rulings, the appellant asserts that symbolic possession is insufficient under law, and the acquisition is legally unsustainable. The State argued that possession of the disputed land was lawfully taken before the Repeal Act.
The appellant did not challenge notices under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) but later raised objections citing procedural discrepancies. The State maintained that affixation of notice was valid, and internal notings had no legal consequence.
The key issue in this case is whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in overturning the Single Judge’s findings. The court examined relevant provisions of the Repeal Act, 1999, particularly Sections 3 and 4. If possession of excess land was taken before the Repeal Act, its vesting remains valid. However, if possession was not taken, proceedings abate, and ownership reverts to the original landholder upon repayment. Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the 1976 Act outline the process for acquiring excess land, requiring notice and voluntary surrender before the state can use force for possession. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in overturning the well-reasoned judgment of the Single Judge. The appeals were allowed, the Division Bench’s ruling was set aside, and the Single Judge’s decision was restored. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.
