Supreme Court sets aside High Court remand order and restores earlier decree directing initiation of land acquisition proceedings

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the appeal arising from conflicting Division Bench orders of the Telangana High Court concerning directions to initiate land acquisition proceedings and related costs. The appeal challenged the Division Bench order dated 12.03.2025 that had remanded the matter after a Single Judge had directed initiation and conclusion of acquisition proceedings and imposed costs.

The Court allowed the appeals to the extent indicated and set aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2025. The judges held that the High Court could not allow two contradictory orders to stand in respect of the same Single Judge decision and observed that a party which had contested an order earlier could not subsequently maintain its correctness in a different contest. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 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.” The Court disposed of the matters without any order as to costs.

Background The dispute arose from WP No.11883/2024 filed in the Telangana High Court by Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin seeking a writ of mandamus to compel initiation of land acquisition proceedings for Ak.16-19 guntas in Dakhla No.449 in Sy.No.1/1 of Kancha Imarath, Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and payment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Single Judge, by order dated 04.09.2024, allowed the petition and directed the respondents “to initiate and conclude the land acquisition proceedings … within a period of four (04) months” and ordered payment of costs of Rs.1,00,000 for alleged deprivation of enjoyment of the property.

The Union of India and others filed Writ Appeal No.1294/2024; the Division Bench dated 18.11.2024 affirmed the Single Judge's direction to initiate proceedings but set aside the Rs.1,00,000 costs, observing that “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 accordance with law.” The State of Telangana separately preferred Writ Appeal No.304/2025 and a different Division Bench, by order dated 12.03.2025, remanded the matter and set aside the Single Judge’s order.

Several Special Leave Petitions followed. This Court earlier disposed of SLP(C) Diary No.54219/2025 on 10.11.2025 and addressed aspects of the rival orders. In the present appeal, the petitioner (who had been respondent in the earlier appeal) challenged the remand order dated 12.03.2025. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench remand created a contradiction with the earlier High Court order which had been affirmed in part, and concluded that the impugned remand order had to be set aside. The appeals were allowed in the terms indicated and the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 was set aside; the matters were disposed without any order as to costs. The Court left open the respondent’s right to seek compensation for illegal occupation in accordance with law.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026 INSC 107 (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) Nos.16393-16394 of 2025) Case Title: Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin v. The Union of India & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Senior counsel for the appellant (name not specified in the order) For the Respondent(s): Senior counsel for the State of Telangana (name not specified); Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India (appearance recorded)