Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 107
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
,
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 16393-16394 OF 2025)
SYED MOHAMMED SHABBUDDIN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned senior counsel for the
appellant and learned senior counsel for the
respondent–State and learned ASG for Union of
India.
3. The appellant herein had filed WP
No.11883/2024 before the High Court for the State
of Telangana seeking the following reliefs:
“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ declaring that the
inaction of the respondents in initiating
the land acquisition proceedings in lieu of
the delivery of possession of the suit
schedule land admeasuring Ac.16-19 guntas
in Dakhla No.449 in Sy.No.1/1 of Kancha
Imarath, Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per orders
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.02.03
10:00:55 IST
Reason:
1
in E.A. No.21 of 2023 in E.P. No.103 2007
in O.S. No.333 of 1986, on the file the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District is arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Article 300A Constitution of
India and direct the respondents to
forthwith initiate land acquisition
proceedings in respect of the said land and
pay the compensation amount to the
petitioner without delay whatsoever in
terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
together with interest at 18% per annum……”
4. By order dated 04.09.2024, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court allowed the aforesaid writ
petition. The operative portion of the said order
reads as under:
“9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ
Petition is allowed directing the
respondents to initiate and conclude the
land acquisition proceedings in respect of
the suit schedule land in O.S. No.333/1986
on the file of the Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy Distinct, within a
period of four (04) months from today and
to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) to the petitioner within a
period of eight (8) weeks from today,
towards damages for depriving the
petitioner of the right to enjoy the
property for more than 25 years from the
date of the judgment and decree in O.S.
No.333/1986, i.e. 15.11.1996.”
2
5. Against the said order, Writ Appeal
No.1294/2024 was filed by the respondent-Union of
India. The Division Bench affirmed the order of
the learned Single Judge by its order dated
18.11.2024. However, the costs of Rs.1,00,000/-
which had been imposed by the learned Single Judge
was set aside. The relevant portion of the
judgment of the Division Bench reads as under:
“10. In view of the aforesaid submissions
and in the facts of the case, the order
dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge insofar as it directs payment
of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of costs for
illegal occupation of the land belonging to
the respondent No.1, is set aside. The
appellants, admittedly, are in possession
of the land in question. Therefore, we
leave it open to the respondent No.1 to
make a claim seeking compensation on
account of illegal occupation of the
property belonging to him in violation of
the constitutional right under Article 300A
of the Constitution of India in accordance
with law.
11. To the aforesaid extent, the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is
modified.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed
of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, shall stand closed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.”
3
6. The respondent-State of Telangana had also
preferred Writ Appeal No.304/2025 assailing the
very same order of the learned Single Judge passed
in Writ Petition No.11883/2024 dated 04.09.2024.
Another Division Bench of the High Court by the
impugned order dated 12.03.2025 remanded the
matter to the learned Single Judge by setting
aside the order dated 04.09.2024.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of remand
dated 12.03.2025 as well as orders dated
08.06.2022 and 18.11.2024, only the State of
Telangana filed SLP(C) Diary No.54219/2025, the
said matter was disposed of by this Court on
10.11.2025 in the following terms as under:
“1. We have heard learned senior counsel
for the petitioners including first
petitioner-State of Telangana and learned
senior counsel for the respondents who has
appeared on caveat.
PART A
2. The impugned order dated 12.03.2025
passed in W.A. No.304/2025 is an order of
remand as is evident on a reading of
‘paragraph 16’ of the impugned order.
3. We do not find any reason to interfere
with the said order.
4
4. Hence, delay is condoned. Special Leave
Petition is dismissed.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
PART B
6. Insofar as the impugned order in Civil
Revision Petition No.3685/2012 dated
08.06.2022 is concerned, we find that there
is delay of 1109 days in filing the Special
Leave Petition. On perusal of the said
impugned order, we find that Civil Revision
Petition filed by the Union of India
through the Defence Secretary, New Delhi
and the Director of DRDL, Hyderabad was
dismissed and no direction whatsoever has
been issued as against the petitioner-
State.
7. Hence, we find no reason to interfere
with the impugned order.
8. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition
is dismissed both on the ground of delay
and for the aforesaid reason.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
PART C
10. The impugned order dated 18.11.2024
arising out of Writ Appeal No.1294/2024,
which was also filed by the Union of India
and Director of DRDL, Hyderabad, the High
Court has disposed of the said writ appeal
by setting aside cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
which was imposed on the petitioner(s)
therein. There is no adverse direction
issued as against the petitioner(s) herein
hence.
11. Hence, we find no reason to interfere
with the said order.
5
12. Further, there is a delay of 215 days
in filing the said Special Leave Petition.
13. Hence, the said Special Leave Petition
is dismissed both on the ground of delay as
well as on merits.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
8. It is also necessary to note that the Writ
Appeal No.304/2025 was preferred by the
respondent–State of Telangana. The said Writ
Appeal was allowed and disposed of by the impugned
order dated 12.03.2025. We note that the aforesaid
writ appeal was allowed and the Division Bench had
remanded the matter at the instance of the State
of Telangana. Nevertheless, special leave petition
was filed by the State of Telangana which we had
dismissed, as the Division Bench had remanded the
matter at the instance of the State of Telangana
in the appeal filed by it. But being aggrieved by
the said order of remand, the appellant herein who
had filed the SLP on 29.04.2025 and which was not
heard along with the other SLPs filed by the State
is before this Court. The appellant herein was the
respondent in the aforesaid appeal.
6
9. Having heard learned senior counsel for the
respective parties at length and bearing in mind
the fact that earlier this Court had already
passed an order dated 10.11.2025 which is
extracted as above, it is necessary to consider
the correctness or otherwise of the order dated
12.03.2025, which was passed subsequent to the
order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court in Writ Appeal No.1294/2024 which writ
appeal was filed by the respondent-Union of India,
from the perspective of the appellant herein.
10. Learned senior counsel for the appellant(s)
submitted that having regard to the fact that the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2024
was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High
Court by its earlier order dated 18.11.2024 and
which has also been affirmed by this Court in SLP
(C) Diary No.54219/2025, it is now necessary to
also set aside the order dated 12.03.2025 passed
in Writ Appeal No.304/2025 which was filed by the
respondent–State of Telangana and Another.
7
11. It was submitted that the State of Telangana
had earlier assailed the order dated 12.03.2025
order before this Court and hence, it is not
permissible for the State to now contend to the
contrary.
12. It is also to be noted that the order passed
by this Court was on 10.11.2025. However, the fact
remains that the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court is contrary
to the order dated 18.11.2024 in Writ Appeal
No.1294/2024 which has been affirmed by this
Court. There cannot be two contradictory orders of
the High Court assailing the very same order of
the learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2024 passed
in Writ Petition No.11883/2024. Further, the order
dated 12.03.2025 which was assailed by the State
of Telangana before this Court has been affirmed
at the instance of the respondent-State. In the
circumstances, the order passed in the appeal
filed by the State of Telangana in Writ Appeal
No.304/2025 has to be in terms of the earlier
8
order passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal
No.1294/2024 which has also been affirmed by this
Court. In the circumstances, it is necessary that
the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 ought to be
set aside at the instance of the appellant herein
as the challenge to the said order was made by
only the respondent-State then and the appellant’s
appeal was not heard then.
13. At this stage, we also take note of the fact
that the respondent-Union of India in Writ Appeal
No.1294/2024 had submitted before the Division
Bench of the High Court as under:
“Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
for the appellants submits that the
appellants are ready and willing to
initiate the proceedings for acquisition of
the land. It is further submitted that the
learned Single Judge ought not to have
awarded costs of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of
the appellants as the appellants are not in
fault.”
14. In that view of the matter, the High Court had
set aside the costs of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One
Lakh Only) that had been imposed on the
respondent–Union of India which order has also
9
been affirmed by us by order dated 10.11.2025
extracted above.
15. It is necessary to reiterate that as against
the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11883/2024 there
cannot be two contradictory orders in Writ Appeals
filed against the said order by different parties,
namely, the Union of India and the State
Government. Hence, it is necessary to set aside
the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed
subsequently. Moreover, the respondent-State also
had unsuccessfully assailed the very same order
before this Court. Today, the State cannot assert
that the order dated 12.03.2025 is correct. As the
State was assailing an order of remand in an
appeal filed by it before the Division Bench of
the High Court and it had been successful in the
said appeal, we did not find the need to set aside
the said order of the Division Bench of the High
Court dated 12.03.2025. But in the present appeal,
the respondent before the High Court has assailed
10
the very same order being aggrieved by the setting
aside of the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court in WP
No.11883/2024.
16. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated
12.03.2025 is set aside.
17. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
18. However, we dispose of the matter(s) without
any order as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
…………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 23, 2026.
11
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
,
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 16393-16394 OF 2025)
SYED MOHAMMED SHABBUDDIN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned senior counsel for the
appellant and learned senior counsel for the
respondent–State and learned ASG for Union of
India.
3. The appellant herein had filed WP
No.11883/2024 before the High Court for the State
of Telangana seeking the following reliefs:
“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ declaring that the
inaction of the respondents in initiating
the land acquisition proceedings in lieu of
the delivery of possession of the suit
schedule land admeasuring Ac.16-19 guntas
in Dakhla No.449 in Sy.No.1/1 of Kancha
Imarath, Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per orders
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.02.03
10:00:55 IST
Reason:
1
in E.A. No.21 of 2023 in E.P. No.103 2007
in O.S. No.333 of 1986, on the file the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District is arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Article 300A Constitution of
India and direct the respondents to
forthwith initiate land acquisition
proceedings in respect of the said land and
pay the compensation amount to the
petitioner without delay whatsoever in
terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
together with interest at 18% per annum……”
4. By order dated 04.09.2024, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court allowed the aforesaid writ
petition. The operative portion of the said order
reads as under:
“9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ
Petition is allowed directing the
respondents to initiate and conclude the
land acquisition proceedings in respect of
the suit schedule land in O.S. No.333/1986
on the file of the Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy Distinct, within a
period of four (04) months from today and
to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) to the petitioner within a
period of eight (8) weeks from today,
towards damages for depriving the
petitioner of the right to enjoy the
property for more than 25 years from the
date of the judgment and decree in O.S.
No.333/1986, i.e. 15.11.1996.”
2
5. Against the said order, Writ Appeal
No.1294/2024 was filed by the respondent-Union of
India. The Division Bench affirmed the order of
the learned Single Judge by its order dated
18.11.2024. However, the costs of Rs.1,00,000/-
which had been imposed by the learned Single Judge
was set aside. The relevant portion of the
judgment of the Division Bench reads as under:
“10. In view of the aforesaid submissions
and in the facts of the case, the order
dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge insofar as it directs payment
of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of costs for
illegal occupation of the land belonging to
the respondent No.1, is set aside. The
appellants, admittedly, are in possession
of the land in question. Therefore, we
leave it open to the respondent No.1 to
make a claim seeking compensation on
account of illegal occupation of the
property belonging to him in violation of
the constitutional right under Article 300A
of the Constitution of India in accordance
with law.
11. To the aforesaid extent, the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is
modified.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed
of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, shall stand closed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.”
3
6. The respondent-State of Telangana had also
preferred Writ Appeal No.304/2025 assailing the
very same order of the learned Single Judge passed
in Writ Petition No.11883/2024 dated 04.09.2024.
Another Division Bench of the High Court by the
impugned order dated 12.03.2025 remanded the
matter to the learned Single Judge by setting
aside the order dated 04.09.2024.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of remand
dated 12.03.2025 as well as orders dated
08.06.2022 and 18.11.2024, only the State of
Telangana filed SLP(C) Diary No.54219/2025, the
said matter was disposed of by this Court on
10.11.2025 in the following terms as under:
“1. We have heard learned senior counsel
for the petitioners including first
petitioner-State of Telangana and learned
senior counsel for the respondents who has
appeared on caveat.
PART A
2. The impugned order dated 12.03.2025
passed in W.A. No.304/2025 is an order of
remand as is evident on a reading of
‘paragraph 16’ of the impugned order.
3. We do not find any reason to interfere
with the said order.
4
4. Hence, delay is condoned. Special Leave
Petition is dismissed.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
PART B
6. Insofar as the impugned order in Civil
Revision Petition No.3685/2012 dated
08.06.2022 is concerned, we find that there
is delay of 1109 days in filing the Special
Leave Petition. On perusal of the said
impugned order, we find that Civil Revision
Petition filed by the Union of India
through the Defence Secretary, New Delhi
and the Director of DRDL, Hyderabad was
dismissed and no direction whatsoever has
been issued as against the petitioner-
State.
7. Hence, we find no reason to interfere
with the impugned order.
8. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition
is dismissed both on the ground of delay
and for the aforesaid reason.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
PART C
10. The impugned order dated 18.11.2024
arising out of Writ Appeal No.1294/2024,
which was also filed by the Union of India
and Director of DRDL, Hyderabad, the High
Court has disposed of the said writ appeal
by setting aside cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
which was imposed on the petitioner(s)
therein. There is no adverse direction
issued as against the petitioner(s) herein
hence.
11. Hence, we find no reason to interfere
with the said order.
5
12. Further, there is a delay of 215 days
in filing the said Special Leave Petition.
13. Hence, the said Special Leave Petition
is dismissed both on the ground of delay as
well as on merits.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
8. It is also necessary to note that the Writ
Appeal No.304/2025 was preferred by the
respondent–State of Telangana. The said Writ
Appeal was allowed and disposed of by the impugned
order dated 12.03.2025. We note that the aforesaid
writ appeal was allowed and the Division Bench had
remanded the matter at the instance of the State
of Telangana. Nevertheless, special leave petition
was filed by the State of Telangana which we had
dismissed, as the Division Bench had remanded the
matter at the instance of the State of Telangana
in the appeal filed by it. But being aggrieved by
the said order of remand, the appellant herein who
had filed the SLP on 29.04.2025 and which was not
heard along with the other SLPs filed by the State
is before this Court. The appellant herein was the
respondent in the aforesaid appeal.
6
9. Having heard learned senior counsel for the
respective parties at length and bearing in mind
the fact that earlier this Court had already
passed an order dated 10.11.2025 which is
extracted as above, it is necessary to consider
the correctness or otherwise of the order dated
12.03.2025, which was passed subsequent to the
order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court in Writ Appeal No.1294/2024 which writ
appeal was filed by the respondent-Union of India,
from the perspective of the appellant herein.
10. Learned senior counsel for the appellant(s)
submitted that having regard to the fact that the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2024
was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High
Court by its earlier order dated 18.11.2024 and
which has also been affirmed by this Court in SLP
(C) Diary No.54219/2025, it is now necessary to
also set aside the order dated 12.03.2025 passed
in Writ Appeal No.304/2025 which was filed by the
respondent–State of Telangana and Another.
7
11. It was submitted that the State of Telangana
had earlier assailed the order dated 12.03.2025
order before this Court and hence, it is not
permissible for the State to now contend to the
contrary.
12. It is also to be noted that the order passed
by this Court was on 10.11.2025. However, the fact
remains that the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court is contrary
to the order dated 18.11.2024 in Writ Appeal
No.1294/2024 which has been affirmed by this
Court. There cannot be two contradictory orders of
the High Court assailing the very same order of
the learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2024 passed
in Writ Petition No.11883/2024. Further, the order
dated 12.03.2025 which was assailed by the State
of Telangana before this Court has been affirmed
at the instance of the respondent-State. In the
circumstances, the order passed in the appeal
filed by the State of Telangana in Writ Appeal
No.304/2025 has to be in terms of the earlier
8
order passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal
No.1294/2024 which has also been affirmed by this
Court. In the circumstances, it is necessary that
the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 ought to be
set aside at the instance of the appellant herein
as the challenge to the said order was made by
only the respondent-State then and the appellant’s
appeal was not heard then.
13. At this stage, we also take note of the fact
that the respondent-Union of India in Writ Appeal
No.1294/2024 had submitted before the Division
Bench of the High Court as under:
“Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
for the appellants submits that the
appellants are ready and willing to
initiate the proceedings for acquisition of
the land. It is further submitted that the
learned Single Judge ought not to have
awarded costs of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of
the appellants as the appellants are not in
fault.”
14. In that view of the matter, the High Court had
set aside the costs of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One
Lakh Only) that had been imposed on the
respondent–Union of India which order has also
9
been affirmed by us by order dated 10.11.2025
extracted above.
15. It is necessary to reiterate that as against
the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11883/2024 there
cannot be two contradictory orders in Writ Appeals
filed against the said order by different parties,
namely, the Union of India and the State
Government. Hence, it is necessary to set aside
the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed
subsequently. Moreover, the respondent-State also
had unsuccessfully assailed the very same order
before this Court. Today, the State cannot assert
that the order dated 12.03.2025 is correct. As the
State was assailing an order of remand in an
appeal filed by it before the Division Bench of
the High Court and it had been successful in the
said appeal, we did not find the need to set aside
the said order of the Division Bench of the High
Court dated 12.03.2025. But in the present appeal,
the respondent before the High Court has assailed
10
the very same order being aggrieved by the setting
aside of the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court in WP
No.11883/2024.
16. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated
12.03.2025 is set aside.
17. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
18. However, we dispose of the matter(s) without
any order as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
…………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 23, 2026.
11