The Supreme Court has set aside a Division Bench order of the Telangana High Court that remanded a land acquisition matter back to the Single Judge, ruling that there cannot be contradictory orders in different writ appeals arising from the same judgment. The Apex Court restored the legal position affirmed in an earlier writ appeal where the direction to initiate land acquisition proceedings was upheld.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeals filed by Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin. The primary legal issue concerned whether a Division Bench could set aside and remand a Single Judge’s order in an appeal filed by the State, when a different Division Bench had already affirmed the same Single Judge order (with a modification on costs) in an appeal filed by the Union of India, and which had been further affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin, originally filed Writ Petition No. 11883/2024 before the Telangana High Court. He sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring the respondents’ inaction illegal for not initiating land acquisition proceedings for his land admeasuring Ac.16-19 guntas in Raviryal Village, Ranga Reddy District. He claimed that despite orders in execution proceedings (E.A. No. 21 of 2023 in E.P. No. 103/2007), the authorities had failed to acquire the land or pay compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
On September 4, 2024, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the respondents to “initiate and conclude the land acquisition proceedings” within four months and imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the respondents for depriving the petitioner of his property rights for over 25 years.
Conflicting Appellate Proceedings
Following the Single Judge’s order, two separate Writ Appeals were filed:
- Union of India’s Appeal (W.A. No. 1294/2024): The Union of India challenged the order. On November 18, 2024, a Division Bench affirmed the direction to acquire the land but set aside the Rs. 1,00,000 cost. The Union of India had submitted they were “ready and willing to initiate the proceedings for acquisition.”
- State of Telangana’s Appeal (W.A. No. 304/2025): The State filed a separate appeal against the same order. On March 12, 2025, a different Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order entirely and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
The State of Telangana subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the remand order and previous orders. The Supreme Court, on November 10, 2025, dismissed the State’s SLP, finding no reason to interfere with the orders.
Arguments and Court’s Analysis
The appellant contended that since the Single Judge’s order (dated 04.09.2024) had already been affirmed by the High Court in the Union of India’s appeal (dated 18.11.2024) and subsequently by the Supreme Court, it was impermissible for another Division Bench to pass a contradictory order of remand on 12.03.2025.
The Supreme Court observed that the Union of India had already accepted the obligation to acquire the land in the earlier appeal. The Court noted, “It is necessary to reiterate that as against the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge… 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.”
The Bench criticized the existence of the subsequent contradictory order, stating, “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.”
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order dated March 12, 2025, which had remanded the matter to the Single Judge. The Court held that the State could not assert the correctness of the remand order when the earlier affirmation of the acquisition direction had attained finality.
The appeals were allowed, thereby solidifying the direction to the authorities to initiate land acquisition proceedings as per the earlier confirmed orders. No order was made as to costs.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin vs. The Union of India & Others Etc.
- Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16393-16394 of 2025)
- Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
