Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Telangana Industrial Infrastructure … vs Shahana Hyder on 6 August, 2026
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.14 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 45529/2026
[Arising out of impugned interim order dated 08-07-2026 in IA No.
1/2026 in Writ Appeal No.420/2016 passed by the High Court for The
State of Telangana at Hyderabad]
TELANGANA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
CORPORATION (TGIIC) Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SHAHANA HYDER & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 223225/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 223230/2026 – PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..))
Date : 06-08-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLIFor Petitioner(s) :
Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR
Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv.
Mr. Ronak Shankar Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Radhika Sudheer, Adv.
Mr. P. Venkatraju, Adv.
Ms. G. Sushmitha, Adv.
Ms. M. Harshini, Adv.
Ms. Oindrila, Adv.
Mr. Sriram Polali, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shiva Santosh Kumar Yelamanchili, Adv.
Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR
Mr. Rudrajit Ghosh, Adv.
Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Ms. Medha Kolanu, Adv.
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.08.06
Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv.
19:23:08 IST
Reason: Mr. Prasun Nabiyal, Adv.
1
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Permission is granted to file Special Leave
Petition.
2. Heard Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan and Mr. Rana Mukherjee,
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Shiva Santosh Kumar Yelamanchili, learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents, on caveat.
3. The present Special Leave Petition calls in
question the correctness of the order dated 8th July, 2026
passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad in IA No.1 of 2026 in Writ Appeal No.420 of
2026. By the said interim order passed in the Writ
Appeal, the High Court has ordered as follows:
“Hence we deem it fit to allow the I.A. and
appoint the Assistant Director, Survey Settlement
and Land Records attached to the office of the
District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, for
(i) Demarcating the land measuring Ac.46-20
Gts., in Survey No.83/2 of Raidurg
(Panmaktha) village, Ranga Reddy District,
with boundaries.
(ii) Noting down the physical features of
the land including structures built and
encroachment made by any third parties. The
survey shall take the sketch and panchnama
issued by the ULC authorities on 20.07.1993
and 26.03.2008 into consideration.
2
We further wish to clarify that the Assistant
Director, Survey, Settlement and Land Records
attached to the office of the District Collector,
Ranga Reddy District shall be at liberty to
conduct a digital survey of the land in question
by use of Drone (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle – UAV).
The applicant shall bear the
expenses/remuneration of the Syuveyor/Assistant
Director, Survey, Settlement and Land Records
attached to the office of the District Collector,
Ranga Reddy District.
We further direct that the Survey shall be
conducted in the presence of the concerned RDO,
Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District and Mr.
Subhash Namburu, the authorised person
representing the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 and 15
to 19.
The Survey Report shall be filed by
29.07.2026.
List this matter on 05.08.2026.”
4. The Writ Appeal itself filed by the State and it
challenged the order dated 18th June, 2014 of the learned
Single Judge wherein the Writ Petition of the respondents
herein was allowed and in the operative part of the
order, the following directions were issued:
“a) Section 3 (1) (a) of the Repeal Act provides
that the repeal of the principal Act shall not
affect the vesting of any vacant land under sub-
section (3) of section 10.possession of which has
been taken over by the State Government and that
the phrase, “possession of which has been taken3
over” appearing in section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal
Act connotes the possession contemplated under
section 10(6) pursuant to valid notice issued
under section10(5) of the Act and orders under
section 10(3) of the Act vesting the land with
the State. Section 4 of the Repeal Act provides
that all legal proceedings pending before the
commencement of the Repeal Act before any Court,
Tribunal or Authority shall abate whereas Section
3 thereof provides that where any vacant land had
vested in the State under Section 10(3) of the
Act of 1976 and the possession of such vested
land taken over by the State before the
commencement of the Repeal Act alone will be
saved from the operation of Section 4 of the
Repeal Act. In the instant case, the impugned
order taking over possession u/s 10(6) of the Act
is illegal and without the authority of law as
the same has been done without there being
corresponding subsisting orders & notification
etc.,u/s 8(4), 9, 10(1), 10(3) & 10(5) of the
Act. Since in the present case the taking over of
possession under the impugned orders u/s 10(6) of
the Act has been done without the subject land
having been vested in the State Government u/s
10(3) of the Act, such taking over of possession
under the impugned order is not falling within
the mandate given in the Repeal Act and therefore
not saved by section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act.
b) The correction order dated 08.07.1993 passed
by the Competent Authority under section 45 of
the Act in C.C. Nos. 11220/76 and batch has the
effect of correcting the total surplus land
computed in Sy. No. 83 under the Central Act to
be 17,17,027 Sq.mtrs (Ac 424-13gts) instead of
4
the earlier determined surplus land of extent
18,94,472 Sq.mtrs (Ac 468-06gts) in all the
earlier proceedings, being the final statements
under section 9 of the Act dated06.12.1979 &
25.01.1980; notifications under section 10(1)of
the Act dated 16.01.1980 & 30.01.1980;
notification under section 10(3) of the Act dated
24.01.1981 and notice under section 10(5) of the
Act dated 26.02.1981.c) The correction order
dated 08.07.1993 is implemented in the order
under section 10(6) of the Act dated 19.07.1993
and the subsequent taking over and handing over
of possession of the surplus land of
extent17,17,027 sq.mtrs (Ac 424-13gts) in Sy. No.
83/1 of Raidurg (Panmaktha) village, clearly &
irrefutably leaving the land of extent Ac 99-
07gts in Sy.No.83/2 being the agricultural land
ceiling, area under a panchanama and sketch on
20.07.1993.
d) The land of extent Ac 99-07gts in Sy. No. 83/2
of Raidurg (Panmaktha) village being the surplus
land under the State Act was first taken over
possession by the State on 23.11.1976 and
subsequently possession o1 the same was reverted
back to the declarants on 25.04.1990, to enable
the declarants to submit the same under the ULC
Act but that due to pendency of various legal
proceedings, no orders or proceedings under the
Central Act could be issued in respect of the
said Ac 99-07gts in Sy.No. 83/2 of Raidurg
(Panmaktha) village subsequent to the correction
order u/s 45 of the Act dated 08.07.1993 and
proceedings u/s 10(6) of the Act dated 19″” & 20th
July 1993. The correction orders categorically
declare the extent of surplus land in Sy.No.83 of
5
Raidurg. The Competent Authority is not entitled
to take possession of land over and above this
extent declared surplus. It is not the case of
the respondents that they have taken up fresh
proceedings for land covered in Sy. No.83/2 which
would have authorized them to take recourse to
possession. The absence of proceedings in
Sy.No.83/2 totally bind the authorities not to
take possession of land covered in Sy.No. 83/2.
e) There is a considerable and inordinate three
decade long delay of nearly 27 years between the
impugned order and the referred to notice therein
under section 10(5) dated 24.02.1981 which stood
modified by the correction order dated 08.07.1993
issued under section 45 of the Act.
The impugned order u/s 10(6) of the Act
dated25.03.2008 was passed by the competent
authority after a long gap of 27 years from the
date of notice u/s 10(5) of the Act dated
24.02.1981, either by giving a completely go-by
or in complete ignorance and oversight of the
correction order u/s 45 of the Act dated
08.07.1993 and which the second respondent is now
trying to shore up with reasons in the counter
affidavit that do not find place in, the impugned
order and also being against the facts of the
case and the same therefore, is not permissible
in law.
f) Subsequent to the correction order dated
08.07.1993 passed by the Competent Authority u/s
45 of the Act in C.G. No. 11220/76 and batch, the
land of Ac 99-07gts in Sy. No. 83/2 stands
unaffected by the earlier orders u/s 9 of the Act
dated 06.12.1979 and 25.01.1980,10(1) of the Act
dated 16.01.1980 and 30.01.1980, 10(3) of the Act
6
dated 24.01.1981 and notice u/s 10(5) dated
26.02.1981 of the Act as the same stood corrected
to declare the surplus land to be 17,17,027
sq.mtrs instead of the earlier declared surplus
land of 18,94,472 sq.mtrs and thereby disables
the Competent Authority to take possession of any
part of t he land in Sy. No. 83/2 of extent
Ac.99-07gts (of which the impugned extent of
1,88,259.89sq.mtrs or Ac 46-20gts is part and
parcel of without passing the fresh foundational
orders u/s 8(4), 9, 10(1),10(3) and 10(5) of the
Act. Since there is no proceedings u/s 10(3) of
the Act vesting the surplus land of
extent1,88,259.89 sq.mts (Ac 46-20gts) in the
State, thereby the impugned order dated
25.03.2008 and the panchanama and sketch taking
over possession on 26.03.2008, cannot stand in
law and are set aside.
g) It is to be clearly noted and affirmed that
the correction orders passed, u/s 45 of the Act
categorically extinguishes and modifies the
previous order to the extent defined in the
correction order. In other words it is clearly
held now that the orders/notifications issued u/s
9, 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) etc. prior to the
correction orders passed u/s 45 of the act stand
corrected to the extent of surplus land declared
& ordered u/s 45 of the act. The correction
orders u/s 45 of the Act freeze the surplus land
of an extent of 17,17,027.00 sq.mts. and that has
been taken possession of. No land over and above
this extent of 17,17,027.00 sq.mts. is covered
either in vesting orders u/s 10(3) of the Act or
declaration of surplus orders u/s 9 of the Act or
by other valid orders.
7
The impugned order taking possession of
1,88,259.89 sq.mts. in the year 2008 are clearly
unauthorized and bad in law since this particular
parcel of land is not declared as surplus or
vested with Govt. under the Act in view of the
correction orders passed by the Competent
Authority under section 45 of the Act.
h) It is also now clearly established that the
land of Sy.No.83/2 to an extent of Ac.99-07gts.
was not subjected to the proceedings under the
Act since it was at that point of time not held
by declarants and the correction order passed
gave finality to this in 1993. Thereafter
subsequent to reconveyance of this land by the
authorities under the State Act, this land should
have been proceeded with under the Act but the
Competent Authority failed to do so and thus
afterwards also the said land continued to be
free from the proceedings under the Act. The
embargo put by the Repeal Act now prohibit the
authorities from taking any action under the Act
and so it can be finally concluded that this land
is free from provisions of the Act and is legally
bound to be with the declarants.
i) Section 3(1) (a) of the Repeal Act does not
save the proceedings taken under the impugned
order since there is no subsisting foundational
order in existence u/s.10(3) of the Act. Since
the impugned order cannot exist without the
foundational orders u/s. 9, 10(1), 10(3) and10(5)
of the Act, the impugned order and the
proceedings taken there under are declared
illegal and the same are set aside. In view of
the abatement of the proceedings u/s. 4 of the
8
Repeal Act, the respondents are directed to
restore possession to the petitioners 3 to 12, of
the land of extent 1,88,259.89 sq.mtrs (Ac 46-
20gts) in Sy. No. 83 of Raidurg (Panmaktha)
village, the possession of which was iiiegaliy
taken over by the State on 26.03.2008.
j) it is declared that the subject land purported
to have been taken possession of by the State
under the impugned order, has not vested in the
State u/s 10(3) of the ULC Act and thereby the
impugned proceedings are not saved u/s section 3
of the Repeal Act and consequently proceedings in
C.C. Nos. 11220/76 and batch have abated u/s 4 of
the Repeal Act in respect of the subject land of
extent 1,88,259.89 sq.mtrs (Ac 46-20gts) in
Sy.No.83 of Raidurg (panmaktha) village and hence
the respondents are In Illegal and unauthorized
possession of the said subject land. I hold that
the action of the respondents In taking unlawful
and Illegal possession under the impugned orders,
Is an arbitrary & colourable exercise of power
violating the fundamental right of petitioners 3
to 12 under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Since petitioners 3 to 12 were deprived of
their property without the authority of law, the
action of the respondents also amounts to
violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Since the respondents are clearly In Illegal
possession of the land and In violation of the
fundamental and Constitutional rights of
petitioners 3 to 12, the respondents are required
to- restore the possession of the subject land to
petitioners 3 to 12 expeditiously, preferably
within a period of eights weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
9
For the foregoing-reasons, the impugned
order, the consequential panchanama and the
sketch annexed thereto are, set side, and
consequently, the writ petition is allowed and
the respondents are directed to restore the
possession of the subject land to petitioners 3
to 12 expeditiously, preferably within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. The parties are left to bear their
own costs.”
5. The case of the petitioner herein is that after the
alleged/purported excess land stood vested in the State,
the possession of the said land was taken over and the
land was handed over on 11th September, 2008 to the
petitioner-Corporation.
6. This fact is disputed by learned senior counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents who in fact
contends that any such handing over has been set aside by
the learned Single Judge. Learned senior counsel
contended that the setting aside of the order of 2nd
September, 2008 was on the basis where the order dated
25th March, 2008 and the Panchnama dated 26 th March, 2008
purportedly directing taking over of possession of the
remaining 46.26 gts itself was set aside. Learned senior
counsel draws particular attention to sub-para (6) of the
directions of the learned Single Judge.
10
7. When the Writ Appeal was filed by the State, an
interim order was made on 28th June, 2016 whereby the
following was recorded:
“Heard learned Advocate General for the
appellants and Sri K.Raghava Charyulu, learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 12.
It is not in dispute that the property in
question is in possession of the State. Learned
Advocate General makes a statement that the State
shall protect the property till the disposal of
the appeal.
In the circumstances, there shall be ad
interim order as prayed in the WPMP. It is
needless to mention that the State shall not
create any third party in the property without
permission of the Court.”
8. The said interim order is operating even now. It
is at this stage, IA No.1 of 2026 came to be filed by the
respondents herein before the High Court which is
resulted in the impugned order.
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that they were
not made a party and as such they were also not heard
when the order for survey was made.
10. Learned senior counsel for the contesting
respondents submits that it is the State which is in
appeal and there was no need to hear the petitioner
herein.
11
11. We are of the considered opinion that interest of
justice will be sub-served, if the following order is
made:
(a) The petitioner will be at liberty to seek
impleadment in the Writ Appeal;
(b) We record the statement of Mr.
C.S.Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner that along with the application
for impleadment, they will file an application for
modification/clarification/vacation of the
impugned order dated 8th July, 2026.
(c) On such application being filed, the High
Court shall, uninfluenced by the observations
made either in the impugned order or in the
present order, hear and dispose of the said
application;
(d) We further direct that in the event the
Survey has not been held, the status quo will be
maintained and it will await the disposal of the
application which the petitioner proposes to
file; and
(e) It is made clear that the protection
available under this order with regard to the
keeping of Survey in abeyance will enure to the
benefit of the petitioner for one week and, in
12
any event not later than 14th August, 2026. Ifthe petitioner is really serious, by the said
date they will move the necessary application and
bring it up for hearing.
12. Mr. Shiva Santosh Kumar Yelamanchili, learned
counsel for the contesting respondents brings to our
notice that the petitioner has already notified auction
of the subject lands.
13. Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner states that no such proposal to auction
the properties, which are in question in the Writ Appeal,
exists.
14. We record the statement.
15. With the above observations, the Special Leave
Petition is disposed of.
16. Pending application shall stand disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (MANOJ KUMAR)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER
13
