SC Restores ULC Possession Ruling, Finds Section 10(5) and 10(6) Breach

A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs Tahsildar & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

Summary: The Supreme Court considered two connected civil appeals arising from the common judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana and Hyderabad in Writ Appeal Nos. 665 and 670 of 2022. The dispute concerned land measuring 46,538.43 square metres in Survey Nos. 74/P, 75/P and 76/P at Fatehnagar, Balanagar Mandal, which had been treated as surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act). The appellant company had obtained exemptions under Section 20(1)(a), had also secured permission under Section 21(1) for a weaker-sections housing scheme, and disputed the subsequent withdrawal, computation and acquisition proceedings.

The State relied upon notices under Sections 10(5) and 10(6), followed by a panchnama dated 08.02.2008, to contend that physical possession of the surplus land had been taken before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 became applicable in Andhra Pradesh from 27.03.2008. The appellant maintained that the State had never taken actual physical possession and that the Section 10(5) notice, Section 10(6) order and panchnama were subsequently prepared documents.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, finding material discrepancies in the dates of the Section 10(6) notice, including the unexplained reference to 01.10.2008, and holding that the mandatory thirty-day period between Sections 10(5) and 10(6) had not been complied with. The Single Judge also found that the Section 10(5) notice had been affixed to the factory gate rather than served on the appellant, that the panchnama lacked adequate particulars of the panch witnesses and the landowner’s signature, and that the documentary material showed that the factory and residential construction remained on the land. The Division Bench reversed that decision and allowed the State’s writ appeals.