MOLUGU MAHIPAL REDDY AND ORS. versus M PRADEEP KUMAR AND ORS.
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 611, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Remitted to Lower Court
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 611 
MOLUGU MAHI PAL REDDY AND ORS. 
v. 
M PRADEEP KUMAR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.8749-8750 of2015) 
OCTOBER 16, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Writ petition filed in public 
interest challenging the action of competent authorities in 
registering the land - Allowed by High Court - Challenged C 
by appellants on the ground that the said parcel of land was 
not government land and therefore High Court erred in 
interfering in exercise of its public interest jurisdiction to 
protect the so called public interest - Plea of appellants that D 
they were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition filed by 
public interest litigant who had been set up by the rival 
claimants to the land only to blackmail or pressurize them -
Held: Several questions arose for determination which ought 
to have been but were not been examined by High Court -
E 
Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh considertion. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD:1. Several questions which arose for F 
determination before this Court have not been examined 
by the High Court. For instance the question, whether 
. the writ petitioh was bona fide and in publiC interest, was 
not examined by the High Court. The averments made 
in the writ petition showed that the petitioner was himself G 
interested in buying some land when he discovered the 
unauthorised occupation of government lands by third
parties. This aspect needed to be examined and verified. 
Secondly, the question whether land .underlying Survey . ' 
611
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A Nos.215 and 222 was Government land or privately 
owned land, was a matter on which any finding by the 
High Court was bound to adversely affect and prejudice 
the appellants. The appellants were not, however, 
arrayed as parties either in PIL No.130 of 2014 or in the 
B earlier rounds of litigation, even whfm they claimed title 
to the property in question on thEi basis of properly 
registered instruments of sale in their favour. The writ 
petitioner appears to have withheld deliberately or 
otherwise that information from the Court and secured 
C an order from the High Court behind the back of the 
appellants. Thirdly, the question whether a notification, 
issued by the Government under Section 48 of the Act 
as early as in the year 1972, could be~ assailed by a public 
0 
activist years after the same was issued, was also 
required to be considered by the High Court. In regard 
to the transfer of possession, the question whether 
appellants/owners of the land were dispossessed or 
their predecessors had been dispossessed, as 
E suggested by tire Government, or whether the 
possession was only on papers which was returned by 
the Government in terms of proceedings of the Collector 
dated 241h July, 2004 also reqlllired scrutiny and 
determination by the High Court. 1Nhether or not there 
F was ariy award made or any payment made to the earlier 
land-owners and whether or not the notification under 
Section 17 was val idly
issued and whether the same was 
preceded by a notice under Section 9 of the Act, are also 
matters that need to be examined by the High Court. So 
G also the'question, whether Section 11-A of the Act has 
any application to cases where iand is vested in the 
Government under Section 17(1) e>f the Act, needs to be 
addressed. Several issues were raised that needed to 
be suitably and articulately formulated and addressed 
H by the High Court before it can issue any direction on
MOLUGU MAHI PAL REDDY AND v. M PRADEEP KUMAR 
613 
the subject. Inasmuch as the Hig_h Court acted in A 
somewhat hasty manner, it has committed a mistake that 
not only resulted in miscarriage ofjustice but rendered 
the order unsustainabie. [Paras 12, 13] [623-E-H; 624-A-
H] 
Mis. Jethumu/I Bhojraj v. State of Bihar and others 
1972 (3) SCR 193 : (1972) 1 sec 714; Delhi 
Airtech Services Private Ltd. and Another v. State 
ofUttarPradesh andAnother2012 (12) SCR 191 
B 
: (2011) 9 SCC 354; V. Chandrasekaran andAnr. 
C 
v. Administrative Officer and Ors.2012 (10) SCR 
603: (2012) 12 sec 133 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1972 (3) SCR 193 
referred to. 
Para 10 
2012 (12) SCR 191 
referred to. 
Para 10 
2012 (10) SCR 603 
referred to. 
Para 11 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
8749-8750 of 2015. 
D 
E 
Form the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2014 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of 
Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Rev. WPMP. 
F 
No. 257 of2014 in PIL No. 130 of2014. 
· 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 8751-8752, 8753-8754, 8755~8756 and 8757-
G 
8758 of 2015. 
M. N. Rao, Sushil Kumar Jain, B. Ramana Murthy, A. 
Ramesh,. P. Srinivasa Reddy, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Shilpi 
Gupta, G. Madhavi, Promila, Annam D. N. Rao, Annam H
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.'R. 
A Venkatesh, Sudipto Sircar, Neelam Ja.in, Vaishali, Ankita 
Chadha for the Appellants. 
Harin P. Raval, Vishwanath Shetty,.Praveen Kumar Singh, 
Bal Krishan Sharma, Md. ZiauddinAhmad,Anand Mukherjee, 
B 
Nipun Saxena, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Punit Dutt Tyagi, P. 
c 
Venkat Reddy, Prashant Kr. Tyagi (for Venkat Palwai Law 
Associates) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T. 5. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals arise out of common judgments and 
orders dated 22nd May, 2014 and 11 1h t~ugust, 2014 passed 
by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in PIL No.130 of 
D 2014 and Review W.P.M.P. No.257 of 2014. By order dated 
22nd May, 2014, a Division Bench of the High Court has allowed 
PIL No.130 of 2014 with a direction to the District Collector, 
the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar arrayed as 
respondents no.1 to 3 in the said petition to implement the 
E orders passed by the High Court in the earlier proceedings 
within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of 
the copy of the said order. The operative portion of the order 
passed by the High Court reads as uncier: 
F 
G 
H 
"14. In view of the above orders of this Court, the writ 
petitioner rightly contended that the action of the 51h 
Respondent-Sub Registrar, Kapra Sub Registrar Office, 
Hyderabad, in registering house/land in Sy. No.215 of 
Kapra Village, Keesar Manda/, Rangareddy District, 
under
registered document No. 177312014 dated 
19. 5. 2014, is illegal as it is causing illegal injury to the 
innocent third parties, as such the said action cannot 
be appreciated. As rightly stated /Jy the petitioner in view 
of the legal bar against the unofficial Respondent No. 10
MOLUGU MAHIPAL REDDY AND v. M PRADEEP KUMAR 
615 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
to 14 to establish their rights over the said land as earlier A 
held by this Court, the unofficial Respondents are 
disposing the subject lands in Sy. No.215, 222, 244 
and 246 to the various third parties without establishing 
their rights over the said lands or the innocent 
purchasers who have been affected and for 7th B 
Respondent to initiate appropriate action in accordance 
with law against the persons who are responsible for 
execution and registration of the said documents. 
15. For the foregoing reasons, the official Respondent C 
1to3 are directed toimplement the orders of this Court 
referred to above, within a period of eight weeks from 
the date of receipt of a copy of this order 
16. The public interest litigation is accordingly disposed D 
of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, 
shall stand closed." 
3. In civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.29822-29823 
of 2014 and SLP (C) Nos.559-560 of 2015, the appellants 
E 
have assailed the order, aforementioned, to the extent the same 
directs action by the officers, aforementioned, in regard to 
lands situate in Survey Nos.244 and 246 of Village Kapra, 
Keesara Manda!, Ranga Reddy District. It is contended by Mr. 
M. N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants 
F 
in the said appeals, that the High Court had erroneously brought 
in Survey Nos.244 and 246 into controversy even when there 
were neither any
acquisition proceedings qua the said survey 
numbers at any earlier point of time nor was there any question 
of title to be decided qua the said land. The High Court, it was G 
argued, without doing so much as verifying the true facts 
concerning the two survey numbers, had included them in the 
direction issued by it which was not only erroneous but wholly 
unjustified. It was urged that land situate in Survey Nos.244 
and 246 of the Village Kapra, Keesara Manda! in the Ranga 
H
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A Reddy District, was private property with which the State 
Government has no concern whatsoever to call for any 
intervention by the High Court in exercise of its public interest 
jurisdiction. 
B 
4. On behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent no.1, it was 
submitted by Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned senior counsel, that 
PIL No.130 of 2014 was meant to protect public property situate 
in Survey Nos.215 and 222 only and that writ petitioners had 
no objection in case the direction of the High Court concerning 
c Survey Nos.244 and 246 was set aside. 
5. In that view, therefore, we do not consider it necessary 
to go any deeper into the matter insofar as Survey Nos.244 
and 246 are concerned which survey numbers even according 
D to the writ petitioner-respondent no.1 herein are not owned by 
the State Government and, therefore, present no public interest 
dimension to be investigated by the High Court or by this court 
in these matters. Civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) 
Nos.29822-29823 of 2014 and SLP(C) Nos.559-560 of 2015 
E challenging the ord~r passed by the High Court, limited to the 
inclusion of Survey Nos.244 and 246, are therefore allowed 
and the direction issued by the High Court in regard to the 
above two survey numbers set aside. 
F 
6. That leaves us with the question whether the High Court 
·was justified in issuing the direction extracted above concerning 
• 
Survey Nos.215 and 222 of Village Kapra, Keesara
Mandal, 
Ranga Reddy District. The case of the appellants in these civil 
appeals qua the said survey numbers is that the same were 
G initially notified for acquisition in terms of a notification dated 
17th November, 1966 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894. Section 6 declaration was issued qua the said lands 
on 28th November, 1966. In the final Award dated 29th 
September, 1969 made by the Collector, land underlying 
H several survey numbers including Survey Nos.215 and 222

MOLUGU MAHIPAL REDDY AND v. M PRADEEP KUMAR 
617 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
was deleted. Relevant portion of ·the Award made by the A 
Collector was in the following terms: 
" ......... The possession of the lands notified was taken 
over from the land owners on two occasions, viz., · 
4.1.1967and13.3.1967. Subsequently, the Directorof B 
Industries, through his Lr. No. 11441011(1 )166, dt. 
28.2.1968 requested to denotify certain lands due to 
paucity of funds. Consequently, the following lands are 
now under denotification, the details of which are 
furnished below: 
C 
~Jt..NQ, 
f1£l1n l 
2 15 
1 1 .1 2 
216 
10.30 
D 
2 17 
19.31 
218 
16.o3 
219 
6. 20 
E 
2 22 
1 6 .1 0 
22311 5 
8. 03 
F 
. ·-
-·--·. 
2 27 
B. 2 7 
228 
5. 30 
2 29 
5. 05 
G 
-------------------
To ta I 
Ac.108.11 G ts 
-------------------
H
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
7. It is also argued by learned counsel for the appellants 
that a formal notification under Section 48 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Government on 22nd 
May, 1972 by which land ad measuring 11.12 acres situate in 
Survey Nos.215 besides 16.10 acres situate in Survey No.222 
B were denotified as the same was no longer required by the 
Government. The withdrawal notification issued by the 
Government was as under: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"WITHDRAWL FROM ACQUISITON OF LANDS 
(Memo No. 703111121 Industries and Commerce May 
22, 1972) 
The following lands specified in the schedule below, 
which have been notified for acquisition for Industrial 
Development Area at Khapra Village, . Hyderabad 
district, Medchal Taluk, draft notification under Section 
4(1) of the land Acquisition Act as approved in G. 0. Rt. 
No.468, Industries, dated 101h November, 1966 and 
published in theAndhra Pradesh Gazette No.310 Part 
1 Extraordinary, dated 171h November, 1966 and 
declare for acquisition through G. 0. Rt. No.496, 
Industries, dated 281h November, 1966 under Section 
6 of the Land Acquisition Act and published in Andhra 
Pradesh Gazette No.328, Part 1, Extraordinary, dated 
fst December, 1966 are no longer required and thereof, 
the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby withdraw the 
lands as detailed below the acquisition under Section 
48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Hyderabad District, Medchal Taluk, Kapara
Village. 
Dry, Patta S.No.215, Owner: Mulugu Papi Reddy, 
Mulugu Ranga Reddy, Ye/la F.~eddy and Venkata 
Reddy 11. 12 acres.
MOLUGU MAHI PAL REDDY AND v. M PRADEEP KUMAR 
619 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
xxx 
xxx 
xx xx 
Dry. Patta S.No.222, Owners same as in S.No.215, 
16. 10 acres. 
xxx 
xxx 
xx xx 
Total= 108. 11 acres. 
A 
B 
PS. KRISHNAN, 
DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT" C 
8. It was argued that in the light of the de-notification the 
possession of aforementioned two survey numbers was 
delivered back to the land-owners by the Joint Collector of 
· Ranga Reddy District in terms of proceedings dated 241h July, 
D 
2004. The relevant portion whereof reads as under: 
"ORDER 
Perused the material papers submitted by the Manda/ 
Revenue 
Officer, . Keesara 
and 
also 
the E 
respondents .......... Therefore in view of the said facts and 
circumstances requested to close the proceedings. 
Further, as per the Manda/ Revenue Officer, Keesra Lr. 
No.8153412001, dated 23.05.2001, it is seen that F 
through Lr. No.E111211!1997, dated 30.06.1999 the 
Collector, Ranga Reddy District reported to he 
government that the following lands are withdrawn as 
per the request of the Director of Industries through Lr. 
No.1144/D/11(1)!68, dated 28.02.1968 withdrawn G 
notification u/s 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act was 
approved by the Government vide Memo No. 703/F-11! 
72-1 Industries and Commerce Department, Dated: 
22. 05. 1972 and the same was published in A.P Gazette 
No.139 Part 1 Extraordinary, Dated: 27.05.1972 and H
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
the Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition 
(Industries) requested the Director of Industries to 
release the following lands to the Pattadars concerned: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Survey No. 
Extent 
215 
11.12 
216 
10.30 
217 
19.31 
. 
218 
16.03 
219 
6.20 
222 
16.10 
223115 
8.03 
227 
8.27 
228 
5.30 
229 
5.05 
In view of the above facts and circumstances it is found 
that the report of the Manda/ Revenue Officer, Keesara, 
F 
Dated: 09.02.2001 and 30.03.2001 have been 
submitted without thoroughly exploring the realities and 
as such ar held to be devoid of merits and as such are 
liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly 
dismissed. 
G 
H 
Typed to dictation corrected and pronounced by me in 
the open court on this the 241h Day of July, 2004. 
Joint Collector 
Ranga Reddy District"
MOLUGU MAHI PAL REDDY AND v. M PRADEEP KUMAR 
621 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
9. It is urged that with the deletion of the land from A 
acquisition in terms of the above notification and the delivery 
of the possession thereof to the land-owners, the State ceased 
to have any title over the land in dispute which vested in the 
owners absolutely and could be dealt with by them according 
to their volition. It was contended that no award was made in 
B 
regard to the land in question by the Collector at any point of 
time nor was any compensation paid to either the erstwhile 
land-owners or the appellants who are bona fide purchasers 
of the same for consideration. There was, therefore, no 
question of the said parcels· of land being treated as C 
Government land nor was there any room for the High Court to 
interfere in exercise of its public interest jurisdiction to protect 
, 
the so called public interest. It is also urged that the appellants 
had not been impleaded as parties to the writ petition filed by D 
the public interest litigant who had been set up by the rival 
claimants to the land, only to blackmail or pressurize the 
appellants herein. It was contented that the public interest 
petitioner was only a name-lender and had no locus standi to 
maintain the petition. 
E 
10. It was also contended that the alleged vesting of land 
in the Government, based on earlier judgments of the High 
Court in Writ Petitions No.8316 of2008, 602 of2001 and Writ 
Appeal No.187 of 2007
arising out of Writ Petition No.8404 of F 
2005, was also totally inconsequential vis-a-vis the appellants 
who were not impleaded as parties to those proceedings. Any 
judgments delivered in those writ petitions, applications for 
direction or writ appeals, were therefore of little consequence. 
Inasmuch as the High Court had relied upon the earlier orders G 
in the proceedings instituted by either party qua the survey 
numbers, aforementioned, without appreciating that the 
appellants were at no stage impleaded as parties to tbose 
proceedings nor given an opportunity to defend their title, it 
committed a mistake that is apparent on the face of the record. 
H
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
It is also contended that the bona fides of the so called public 
activist were also doubtful in the light of certain information 
collected under the Right to Information Act that suggested that 
the Trust which the writ petitioner was claiming to be running 
had been shut down and the piece of land where the same 
B was established transferred. It was urged that the High Court 
had proceeded on an erroneous assumption that land 
underlying Survey Nos.215 and 222 stood validly vested in 
the Government and free from all encumbrances. The 
appellants were, according to learned counsel for the 
C appellants, entitled to question the validity of Notification under 
Section 17 of the Act, if only the State Government were to 
make any claim against them on the basis thereof. Since the 
Government had itself dropped the acquisition proceedings 
0 
by issuing a notification and transferring possession, the 
appellants or their predecessors in-title do not have any reason 
to do so. It was urged that for a valid notification under Section 
17 it was essential that a notice under Section 9(1) of the Act 
was issued to the owners concerned which was not issued in 
E the Instant case according to the appellants. Reliance in 
support of that submission was placed upon the decision of 
this Court in M/s. Jethumull Bhojraj v. State of Bihar and 
others (1972) 1 SCC 714. It was submitted by Mr. Sushil 
Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel
appearing for the 
F appellants, that in Delhi Airtech Services Private Ltd. and 
Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011) 9 
SCC 354, the question whether Section 11-A applies even to 
cases where the land stands vested under Section 17 of the 
G 
Act is pending before a Three-judge Bench of this Court. 
11. On behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner it was urged 
by Mr. Harin P. Raval that even when there was no award in 
regard to the lands situate in Survey Nos.215 and 222, the 
vesting was absolute in terms of Section 17(1) of the Act and 
H once vested, the Government could not divest itself of land
MOLUGU MAHI PAL REDDY AND v. M PRADEEP KUMAR 
623 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
even if no award is made within the period stipulated under A 
Section 11-A of the Act. Reliance in support of that submission 
was placed by him on the decision of this Court in \I. 
Chandrasekaran and Anr. v. Administrative Officer and 
Ors. (2012) 12 S.C.C. 133. It is also contended that although 
there were no directions issued by the High Court in Writ B 
Petition No.8316 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.602 of 2001 
yet the findings recorded therein clearly established that the 
land in question vested in the State Government for all intents 
and purposes which could not be allowed to be occupied 
unauthorisedly by the appellants or anyone else. The fact that C 
the appellants herein were not impleaded as parties to the 
said earlier proceedings was, according to Mr. Raval, of no 
consequence. It was also urged that the possession of the land 
having been taken over, Section 48 of the Act was not available D 
to the State Government to divest itself of the land and that the 
High Court was perfectly justified in holding so in the earlier 
rounds of litigation. 
12. Several questions, in our opinion, arise for our 
determination which ought to have been but have not been 
E 
examined by the High Court. For instance, whether the writ 
petition was bona fide and in public interest, has not been 
examined by the High Court. While, we do not propose to deal 
with the issue at this stage, the averments made in
the writ F 
petition show that the petitioner was himself interested in buying 
some land when he discovered the unauthorised occupation 
of government lands by third parties. This aspect needs to be 
closely examined and verified, in the light of what the appellants 
have to say in that regard. 
13. Secondly, the question whether land underlying SuNey 
Nos.215 and 222 was Government land or privately owned 
land, was a matter on which any finding by the High Court was 
bound to adversely affect and prejudice the appellants herein. 
G 
H
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants were not, however, arrayed as parties either in 
PIL No.130 of 2014 or in the earlier rounds of litigation even 
when they claim title to the property in question on the basis of 
properly registered instruments of sale in their favour. The writ 
petitioner appears to have withheld deliberately or otherwise 
B that information from the Court and secured an order from the 
-
~. 
·--.......... -
-
High Court behind the back of the appellants. Thirdly, the 
question whether a notification issued by the Government under 
Section 48 of the Act as early as in the year 1972 could be 
assailed by a public activist years after the same was issued, 
C is also required to be considered by the High Court. In regard 
to the transfer of possession, the question whether appellants/ 
owners of the land were dispossessed or their predecessors 
had been dispossessed, as suggested by the Government, 
0 
or whether the possession was only on papers which was 
returned by the Government in terms of proceedings of the 
Collector dated 241h July, 2004, referred to earlier, also calls 
for the scrutiny and determination by the High Court. Whether 
or not there was any award made or any payment made to the 
E earlier land-owners and whether or not the notification under 
Section 17 was validly issued and whether the same was 
preceded by a notice under Section 9 of the Act, are also 
matters that need to be examined by the High Court.
So also 
the question whether Section 11-A of the Act has any application 
F to cases where land is vested in the Government under Section 
17(1) of the Act, needs to be addressed, having regard to the 
pronouncements of this court to which learned counsel for the 
parties made a reference. All told, several issues have been 
raised that need to be suitably and articulately formulated and 
G addressed by the High Court before it can issue any direction 
on the subject. Inasmuch as the High Court has acted in 
somewhat hasty manner, it has committed a mistake that has 
not only resulted in miscarriage of justice but rendered the order 
unsustainable. 
H
MOLUGU MAHIPAL REDDY AND v. M PRADEEP KUMAR 
625 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
14. In the result, we allow these civil appeals, set aside A 
orders dated 22"ct May, 2014 and 11th August, 2014 passed 
by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in PIL No.130 of 
2014 and in Review W.P.M.P. No.257 of 2014 and remit PIL 
No.130 of 2014 back to the High Court for a fresh disposal in 
accordance-with-taw; after impleadiA§-the-appellants herein 
B 
as parties to the same and giving them an opportunity of being 
heard in the matter. We make it clear that we shall not to be 
understood to have expressed any final opinion on the 
contentions urged before us to which we have made brief 
reference in the body of this order. We have referred to the C 
issues only for the limited purpose of indicating the broad 
parameters of the scrutiny which the High Court may conduct 
to determine all the issues that arise for consideration, which 
we have indicated only by way of illustration without meaning D 
to enumerate them exhaustively. The parties are directed to 
appear before the High Court on Monday, the 16th November, 
2015 for further directions. No costs. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals allowed & matter remitted back to High Court. 
E