TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD versus AZAMUNNISA BEGUM (DIED) THRU. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 797 · Decided: 01-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
797
TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD
v.
AZAMUNNISA BEGUM (DIED) THRU. LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4632-4638 of 2018)
MAY 01, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition:
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317
Fasli: s. 87 – Settlement Officer to correct clerical and other errors
admitted by all parties – Acquisition of thousand acres of land
covering few dozen survey numbers by the State Housing Board for
the housing scheme – Entire land in survey no. 1009 acquired by
the Housing Board as also possession taken – Respondent-land
owner’s case that 11 acres and odd had not been acquired –
However, revenue authorities case that the entire area of Survey
No. 1009 was actually 687.03 acres and as a result 20.18 acres
had not been acquired whereas records originally indicated that
Survey No. 1009 consists of 666.25 acres – Challenge to – Held:
There was no clerical error in the measurement of survey No. 1009
for all intents and purposes – Entire land in Survey No. 1009 was
acquired for a Housing Scheme – No parcel of land in Survey
No.1009 was left out or not acquired – Compensation was paid for
acquisition of the entire Survey No.1009 – Division Bench of the
High Court erred in concluding that 20.18 acres of land in Survey
No. 1009 had not been acquired – Respondent’s claim u/s. 87 after
a period of 25 years was hopelessly delayed for which there is no
explanation – Respondents ought to have been vigilant in pursuing
their claim, assuming the claim was legitimate – Furthermore, third
party rights have been created in the meanwhile under the Housing
Scheme and there is no way to put the clock back – Housing Board
was directly and primarily affected by the claim made by the
respondents u/s. 87 and thus, had the locus standi to proceed before
the Commissioner (Appeals), the High Court and this Court –
Judgment passed by the Division Bench is set aside.
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 797
797
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  4 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The entire Survey No. 1009 was acquired by the
APHB for a Housing Scheme. No parcel of land in Survey No.1009
was left out or not acquired. Compensation was paid for acquisition
of the entire Survey No.1009. The Division Bench of the High
Court erred in concluding that 20.18 acres of land in Survey
No.1009 had not been acquired. It is too simplistic on the part of
the respondents to contend that land in excess of 661.04 acres in
Survey No.1009 was not acquired. This is certainly not so and
the entire Survey No.1009 was acquired. The claim made by the
respondents under Section 87 of the Act was hopelessly delayed
for which there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming. Since
third party rights have been created in the meanwhile under the
Housing Scheme of the APHB and there is no way to put the
clock back. The respondents ought to have been vigilant in
pursuing their claim, assuming the claim was legitimate, but since
they were not vigilant enough, they must suffer the consequences
of their inaction. The proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land
Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 were of
some consequence but since the APHB has not relied upon the
proceedings under the said Act and the counsel has only
mentioned it in passing, there is no intention to base the decision
on the declaration made by the respondents under the said Act.
The APHB was directly and primarily affected by the claim made
by the respondents under Section 87 of the Act and therefore,
had the locus standi to proceed before the Commissioner
(Appeals), the High Court and this Court. The judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench is set aside. [Paras 65-70] [824-B-
H; 825-A]
2.1 The Division Bench of the High Court seriously erred
in setting aside the order of the Single Judge.The APHB had
acquired, in terms of the Award dated 10th June, 1968 a couple
of thousand acres of land covering a few dozen survey numbers.
The entire land was acquired and in view of the large area of
acquisition even if there was some error in describing the area of
a particular survey number, that would be inconsequential given
the overall acquisition and its purpose for a Housing Scheme
under Section 22A of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act.
The entire land in Survey No.1009 was acquired by the APHB.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
799
There cannot be any doubt in this regard, particularly since the
APHB also took possession of the entire Survey No.1009. [Para
41]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.