‘REPORTABLE’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS. 910-924 OF 2019 IN

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 3793-3807 OF 2018 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5442-5456 OF 2015

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.      Petitioner(s)/ Appellant(s)

VERSUS

GRACE SATHYAVATHY SHASHIKANT & ORS.           Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R. F. NARIMAN, J.

The matter before us has had a chequered history and

has  careered  through  the  Courts  resulting  ultimately  in

Government  filing  a  review  petition  against  our  judgment

dated 16.08.2017, which review was disposed of by judgment

dated 27.02.2019 seeking to locate where exactly Survey No.

129/45/D, Jubilee Hills, Sheikpet, Hyderabad,  happens to

be.

The writ petitions were originally filed challenging

the proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Act, 1976, and a proceeding by which certain land was handed

1

M.A. Nos. 910-924/2019 in  R.P.(C) Nos. 3793-3807/2018 in C.A. Nos. 5442-5456 OF 2015

over  to  the  Andhra  Prabha  Publications(newspaper

publication).  These proceedings culminated in the judgment

of a learned Single Judge, who ultimately stated that the

Urban  Land  Ceiling  proceedings  have  abated,  and  that  it

would  be  necessary  to  get  a  Survey  conducted  by  the

competent  authority  in  order  to  determine  whether  the

allotment of land to the Andhra Prabha publications would be

set aside.  It was held by the learned Single Judge that if,

after survey, it is clear that the extent of 8,000 square

meters that was alloted to the Andhra Prabha publications

was in fact Survey No. 129/45/D, the order allotting the

aforesaid land to Andhra Prabha publications would have to

be  set  aside.   It  was  further  ordered  that  if  the

petitioners feel aggrieved by the said survey result, they

shall be free to file appropriate remedies available to them

in law.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature,

Andra Pradesh, by a judgment dated 16.03.2011, set aside the

judgment of the learned Single Judge.  The order of the

Division bench was, in turn, set aside by this Court on

16.08.2017,  by  which  judgment  it  was  stated  that  the

Division Bench erred in mixing up two sets of properties, as

a result of which, after setting aside the order of the

Division Bench, the direction contained in the order of the

2

M.A. Nos. 910-924/2019 in  R.P.(C) Nos. 3793-3807/2018 in C.A. Nos. 5442-5456 OF 2015

learned Single Judge was restored.  Proceedings then arose

in which our order dated 10.05.2018 reflects that Survey no.

129/45/D had to be demarcated.  Despite an order of this

Court  dated  21.03.2018,  this  had  not  taken  place,  as  a

result of which the authorities were directed to submit on

affidavit a copy of the demarcated area on a plan made out

for that purpose.

The initial Survey that was then carried out stated

that no such land as is contained in the aforesaid Survey

number  exists.   When  faced  with  this,  the  then  learned

senior counsel appearing for the State requested that the

judgment itself be reviewed.  A review petition was then

filed which was disposed of by a detailed judgment by this

Court  dated  27.02.2019  in  which  this  Court  referred  to

various documents and then stated:  

“Given  the  High  Court  judgment  and  the aforesaid documents, it is obviously not open to the Government to state that no such plot, that is Survey No. 129/45/D or 129/D-45, exists in Jubilee Hills, Sheikpet, Hyderabad.

This being the case, we reject the Committee Report that has since been filed dated 02.07.2018 and set it aside as this Report is not in consonance with the directions of the learned Single Judge which has been upheld by us.

We,  therefore,  direct  the  Government  to demarcate the aforesaid plot being land on the ground as it exists today.  This will be done strictly in accordance with the Single Judge’s directions by the Collector within a period of eight weeks from today.

The  Review  Petitions  stand  disposed  of accordingly.

List after eight weeks for compliance.”

3

M.A. Nos. 910-924/2019 in  R.P.(C) Nos. 3793-3807/2018 in C.A. Nos. 5442-5456 OF 2015

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a Compliance Report

has been given to this Court with a map appended thereto.

Ultimately,  the  said  land  was  located  by  the  aforesaid

Report on the said map as follows:

“Findings: - It is observed that  1.  A  portion  of  land  now  demarcated  in  Plot  No.

129/45/D to an extent of Ac.O-38½ gts where an NOC  was  issued,  corresponding  to  T.S.  No.  20, Block-K, Ward No. 12 of Shaikpet Village and the remaining portion of land as per compromise deed in S.A. No. 354/2 of 1954-55 admeasuring Ac. 2- 22½ gts is on northern side of the NOC issued land  forming  part  of  129/45/D  corresponds  to TS.No. 19P, 18P, 17/2p, Block-K, Ward-12.

2. The Land allotted to Andhra Prabha is located in TS.No.  19/p,  Block-K,  Ward  No.  12  of  Shaikpet village is not falling in the land demarcated by the Committee.

3. Accordingly, plot No. 129/45/D a map is prepared showing  the  location  of  Plot  No.  129/45/D (triangle ABC) and land allotted to Andhra Prabha (Rectangle PQRS).

Objections were then filed to the aforesaid Report by

the  original  petitioners  in  the  civil  appeals,  to  which

replies have been filed by the State of Telangana and by

Andhra Prabha Publications.

Having heard learned counsel for all the parties, it

is important to advert, first and foremost, to some of the

documents that were involved in the original civil appeals

before  us.   A  sale  deed  dated  16.07.1962,  which  is  of

pivotal importance in the facts of this case, had made it

4

M.A. Nos. 910-924/2019 in  R.P.(C) Nos. 3793-3807/2018 in C.A. Nos. 5442-5456 OF 2015

clear that the property was in rectangular shape and was

bounded, among other things, by a public proposed road on

the north and vacant Government land on the south and the

west.  If the map appended to the Compliance Report is to be

seen, the description of this property would accord with TS

No. 19/P which is marked by the letters ‘PQRS’ and which has

been alloted to Andhra Prabha publications.

In  addition,  if  the  Urban  Land  Ceiling  Authority’s

order of 27.06.2000, declaring part of this land surplus, is

also to be seen, the aforesaid order makes it clear that

plot  No.  129/45/D  is  contained  in  TS  No.  19/2  and  is

described as  Surplus Vacant Land (it is not disputed that

the land which falls under TS No. 17/2 and which admeasures

2  acres  22½  gunthas  is  heavily  built  up  with  buildings

having been constructed in the 1980s).  Also, the said Urban

Land Ceiling order has specifically held that the land on

which plot No. 129/45/D stood did not involve any Government

land, it being privately owned.

However,  Shri  K.  Radhakrishanan,  learned  senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the Government, read to us in

extenso the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the State of

Telangana dated 03.09.2019 in which, after going into the

history of the Town Planning Survey of this area, it is

specifically stated that the land allotted to Andhra Prabha

5

M.A. Nos. 910-924/2019 in  R.P.(C) Nos. 3793-3807/2018 in C.A. Nos. 5442-5456 OF 2015

publications is  classified as  a Government  land which  is

vacant and different from the land in Survey No. 129/45/D.

We have seen from the description of this land in the sale

deed of 1962 as well as in the competent authority’s order

dated  27.06.2000  that  this  would  be  wholly  incorrect

inasmuch as this land is clearly not a Government land.

It  was  also  brought  to  our  notice  by  Mr.  Mahesh

Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

Andhra Prabha publications, that averments were made by an

affidavit of 2006 by the appellants in the original case

stating that Survey No.129/45/D was distinct from Survey No.

403 and that being so distinct, they should not be allowed

to turn around and argue to the contrary.  He also argued

that the aforesaid land really could not be stated to be in

existence, as was mentioned in the first Survey Report.   

We  are  afraid  that  neither  of  these  contentions  is

open to the learned counsel in view of our judgment dated

27.02.2019 disposing of the review petition before us.

Ordinarily,  we  would  have  relegated  the  original

appellants before us to challenge the Report that has now

been filed in compliance with our Review Order.  However, we

find a reluctance on the part of the authorities to part

with this  land as it is extremely valuable.  We have found

how, in the earlier round of proceedings, they have taken

6

M.A. Nos. 910-924/2019 in  R.P.(C) Nos. 3793-3807/2018 in C.A. Nos. 5442-5456 OF 2015

various  conflicting  stands  as  to  whether  the  land  was

originally evacuee property or otherwise.  We also find that

in the first Survey that was done pursuant to the learned

Single Judge’s  judgment, there  was a  great reluctance  to

part with this land which is why the aforesaid Survey Report

wrongly stated that such land does not at all exist.  It is

only at the repeated insistence of this Court that finally a

Survey Report has now located the land, but not where it

actually exists.  The reason is not far to seek - because

if, as per the map appended to the present Report, the land

marked A, B, C was to be handed over to the appellants, it

would  be  land  which  is  heavily  built  up  and  of  no  use,

whatsoever, to the appellants.

We  are  therefore  of  the  view  that,  given  the

extraordinary facts of this case, we do not wish to drive

the  appellants  to  one  more  round  of  proceedings  and,

therefore, in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of

the Constitution of India, reject the second Report that has

been  given  to  us  and  declare  that  the  land  which  is  at

Survey No. 19/P and which is marked in the map of the second

Survey Report as ‘PQRS’ is the land that is actually Survey

No. 129/45/D.   This being the case, it is clear that the

allotment made  to Andhra  Prabha publications  must be  set

aside,  and  the  land  be  delivered  by  Andra  Prabha

7

M.A. Nos. 910-924/2019 in  R.P.(C) Nos. 3793-3807/2018 in C.A. Nos. 5442-5456 OF 2015

Publications  to  the  appellants  within  a  period  of  eight

weeks from today.  

The miscellaneous application is accordingly disposed

of.

All  amounts  that  have  been  paid  by  Andhra  Prabha

publications  to  the  Government  shall  be  refunded  by  the

Government to Andhra Prabha publications within a period of

twelve weeks from today, with Simple Interest at 6 per cent

per annum.

………………………………………………………………………., J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

………………………………………………………………………., J. [ K.M. JOSEPH ]

………………………………………………………………………., J. [ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN ]

New Delhi; October 01, 2019.

8