Telangana HC Denies Government Bid to Resume Aviation Land
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, while setting aside the resumption proceedings issued by the tahsildar, faulted the government’s high-handedness in issuing the orders.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has set aside the state government’s resumption order pertaining to 9 acres of land in Survey No. 26 of Kancha Gachibowli village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy district, which was originally alienated in favour of the civil aviation ministry in 1966-67 for installation of a VOR radio-navigational facility.
The state government, through the tahsildar of Serilingampally, issued proceedings in February 2008 for resumption of the land on the ground of failure to utilise it. Despite earlier resumption proceedings having been set aside by the High Court in January 2008, the then state government went ahead once again within a month to resume the land and issued fresh resumption orders by allegedly preparing unauthentic panchanama reports. The Airports Authority of India (AAI), a part of the civil aviation ministry, challenged the resumption orders issued by the State government.
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, while setting aside the resumption proceedings issued by the tahsildar, faulted the government’s high-handedness in issuing the orders. He questioned how the government could proceed with resumption without possessing a single revenue record related to the original alienation or a conveyance deed.
The judge pulled up the then revenue authorities for allegedly preparing three false panchanamas attached to the resumption orders, purportedly documenting the taking of possession of the land. Justice Shravan Kumar meticulously examined the three panchanamas dated 25-1-2008, 28-2-2008 and 3-3-2008, pointing out that on each occasion different panchas were assigned and that no notice was given to the Airports Authority of India — which had an interest in the land — before taking physical possession.
The judge reiterated the essentials of a valid panchanama, which must bear the signatures of the panchas, the person preparing the panchanama, and the landowner or interested person. In this case, no notices were served upon the AAI and their signatures were not taken on the panchanamas.
The court also pointed out that there is no evidence with the government regarding allotment or alienation of the land. In such a scenario, the government ought to have taken appropriate steps in accordance with law rather than issuing impugned notice asking AAI for information regarding resumption of unutilised land.
The court also viewed that it is necessary to refer the resumption question to the civil aviation ministry, who are the rightful owners of the land and that the details of the alienation are not immediately available.
