{"id":181150,"date":"1996-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996"},"modified":"2018-01-28T01:53:50","modified_gmt":"2018-01-27T20:23:50","slug":"the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996","title":{"rendered":"The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (3) 282, \t JT 1996 (3)\t629<\/div>\n
Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nH.E.H., THE NIZAM, HYDERABAD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t22\/03\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (3) 282\t  JT 1996 (3)\t629\n 1996 SCALE  (3)140\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nK . Ramaswamy,J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment
\nand decree  dated November  11, 1992 made in A.S. No.2470\/86
\nby the\tHigh Court  of Andhra  Pradesh.\t Notification  under
\nSection 4(1)  of the  Land Acquisition\tAct 1894 (for short,
\nthe fact’)  was published  in the  State Gazette on July 27,
\n1978   for   public   Purpose,\t namely,   construction\t  of
\nResidential-cum-Commercial Complex  in Saroonnagar, Phase-II
\nin out-skirts  of Hyderabad  city  by  the  Hyderabad  Urban
\nDevelopment Authority. The total extent of the land notified
\nfor acquisition\t was 25\t acres 12  gunthas. After conducting
\nenquiry under  Section 5A  declaration under  Section 6\t was
\npublished on May 3, 1979. The respondent filed Writ Petition
\nNo.2510\/82 in the High Court to quash the notification under
\nSection 4(1). A learned single Judge by Order dated June 30,
\n1983 directed  the Land\t Acquisition Officer [LAO] either to
\npass  an  award\t or  issue  notification  under\t Section  48
\nwithdrawing the\t acquisition within  a period  of six  weeks
\nfrom that date. In furtherance thereof, the LAO by his award
\ndated  August\t6,  1983   determined  the   compensation  @
\nRs.10,000\/- per\t acre. On  reference under  Section 18,\t the
\nDistrict Judge\tby his award and decree dated March 31, 1986
\ndetermined the\tcompensation @\tRs.30\/- per  square yard. On
\nappeal it  was confirmed  by the  Division Bench of the High
\nCourt. Hence this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     It may  be relevant  to notice  at this  stage that the
\nlands are  within the  Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration covered
\nby Urban  Land Ceiling\tand Regulation Act, 1976 (for short,
\nthe ‘Ceiling  Act’) which  came into  force on\tFebruary 17,
\n1976. The  respondent filed  the statement  under Section  6
\nthereof\t By   notification  dated  November  27,  1982,\t the
\ncompetent authority  under the\tCeiling\t Act  issued  notice
\nunder Section 9 of the Act determining excess vacant land to
\nbe acquired  by the  Government. By  further  State  Gazette
\nnotification dated February 23, 1983 published under Section
\n10(3) of  the Ceiling  Act the\tcompetent authority declared
\nthe acquired  land notified on November 4, 1982 in the State
\nGazette under  Section 10(1)  of the Act as excess land with
\neffect from the said date to be deemed to have been acquired
\nby and\twested in  the State  Government and  that it  stood
\nvested absolutely in it free from all encumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
     Possession of  the acquired  land was  taken on June 2,
\n1984 and the compensation of a sum of Rs.8,43,778\/- was paid
\nin Form No.C on June 7, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     The  first\t contention  raised  by\t Shri  Sitharamaiah,
\nlearned\t senior\t  counsel  for\tthe  appellant\tis  that  by
\noperation of  Section 3\t of the\t Ceiling Act which came into
\nforce in relation to Andhra Pradesh on February 17, 1976, no
\nperson shall be entitled “to hold” any vacant land in excess
\nof the\tceiling limit  on and  from  that  date.  Section  4
\nenvisages ceiling  limit and  every holder of vacant land in
\nexcess of  the ceiling\tlimit shall  file a  statement on or
\nbefore six  months  from  February  17,\t 1976.\tBy  conjoint
\noperation of  Section 6,  Rule 3  and Form  I,\tholder\tmust
\nspecify vacant\tland which  he desires\tto retain within the
\nceiling limit.\tA draft\t statement should  be  filed  before
\ncompetent authority who, after considering the objections to
\nthe draft statement, makes necessary alteration in the draft
\nstatement and prepares a final statement made under Sections
\n8 and  9 of the Act giving particulars of the vacant land in
\nexcess of  the ceiling limit which should be published under
\nSection 10  [1] of the Act.. If any person interested in the
\nvacant\tland   makes  claimed  under  Section  10  [2],\t the
\ncompetent  authority,\tafter  considering   the  same\twill
\ndetermine the nature and extent of the right. Section 10 [3]
\nrequires the  competent authority  to publish  a declaration
\nthat the  excess vacant\t land shall  be deemed\tto have been
\nacquired  by  the  Government  with  effect  from  the\tdate
\nspecified therein  and that the same shall be deemed to have
\nbeen vested  in the  Government free  from all encumbrances.
\nUnder Section  10 [5], the competent authority may order any
\nperson in  possession of  the vacant  land to  surrender  or
\ndeliver possession  of the excess land within thirty days of
\nservice of notice. If he refuses, the competent authority is
\nempowered under\t Section 10  [6] to take possession by using
\nsuch force  as may  be\tnecessary  .  Section  11  envisages
\npayment of  compensation for  the excess land deemed to have
\nbeen  acquired.\t  By  operation\t of  the  declaration  under
\nSections 10(3)\tand 10(1)  referred  to\t hereinbefore,\tsuch
\nland, the  subject of the acquisition is deemed to have been
\nvested\tin   the  State\t free  from  all  encumbrances.\t The
\nrespondent\/claimants are  entitled only\t to the\t payment  of
\ncompensation as\t provided in  Section 11 of the Ceiling Act.
\nThe Civil  Court, therefore,  is devoid\t of jurisdiction  to
\ndetermine the compensation under the Act, since the field is
\nalready\t occupied  by  the  Ceiling  Act.  Determination  of
\ncompensation at\t the  enhanced\trate  by  the  Civil  Court,
\ntherefore, is  clearly an  error apparent on the face of the
\nrecord. The  Government, therefore, does not have to acquire
\nland since  the land  already vested  in it under Section 10
\n[3] free  from all encumbrances. The vesting shall be deemed
\nto have\t taken place  from February  17, 1976,\tthe date  on
\nwhich the Urban Ceiling Act came into force. Sri Sitamaraiah
\nalso contended\tthat the  District Court  and the High Court
\ncommitted grave\t error in  determining the  market  value  @
\nRs.35\/- per  square yard. In Ex.A1 to A4, the market rate of
\nthe lands  sold was  Rs.6\/- per\t square yard  only  and\t the
\nremaining price\t of Rs.29\/-  was for development. The courts
\nbelow, therefore, were in error in awarding the compensation
\n@ Rs.30\/- per square yard.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri K.  Madhava Reddy,  learned senior counsel for the
\nrespondent, contended that the appellant having proceeded to
\nacquire the  land under\t the Acts  has no  power, unless the
\nacquisition is\twithdrawn Section  48, to  contend that\t the
\nexcess vacant under the Ceiling Act vests in the Government.
\nnotification  published\t under\tSection\t 6  of\tthe  Act  is
\nconclusive of  the public purpose which would be crystalized
\nby making  an award  under Section  11. Compensation  having
\nbeen determined\t under Section\t11, as\tdirected by the High
\nCourt and  possession thereof  having been  taken, it  is no
\nlonger open  to the  appellant to  contend that they are not
\nrequired to pay compensation under Section 23 of the Act nor
\nis the\trespondent entitled  to fall back upon Section 11 of
\nthe Ceiling  Act which is contrary to the Scheme of the Act.
\nIt cannot,  therefore, be  contended that  the respondent is
\nentitled to  compensation  only\t under\tSection\t 11  of\t the
\nCeiling Act.  He also  contended  that\tthe  Government\t had
\nexempted the  lands from the Ceiling Act.Therefore, the High
\nCourt was  right in  determining the  compensation under the
\nAct.  He   further  contended\tthat  the   Hyderabad  Urban
\nDevelopment Authority  [for short,  ‘HUDA’] itself  had sold
\nthe lands in the neighborhood @ Rs.30\/- per square yard and,
\ntherefore, that\t would form  basis for\tdetermination of the
\ncompensation in\t respect of the acquired land. The reference
\nCourt, therefore,  was right  in placing  reliance  on\tthat
\npiece of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     The  rival\t  contentions  give   rise  to\tthe  primary
\nquestion: whether  the excess  vacant land  covered  by\t the
\nCeiling Act  stood vested  in the  State  is  liable  to  be
\nacquired under the Act? It is seen that Section 3 in Chapter
\nIII of\tthe Ceiling  Act declares  that except\tas otherwise
\nprovided in the Act, on and from the commencement of the Act
\n[February 17, 1976 in relation to Andhra Pradesh) “no person
\nshall be  entitled to  hold any vacant land in excess of the
\nceiling\t limit”.  The  ceiling\tlimit  for  Hyderabad  Urban
\nAgglomeration is  1000 sq. meters prescribed in category ‘B’
\nof Schedule  I referred in Section 4. “Hold” means own. This
\nexpression connotes  two concepts, i.e., physical possession
\nor legal  title to the vacant lands. Both the concepts stand
\nattracted to  the concept  ‘hold’ under the Ceiling Act. The
\nowner or  excess vacant\t land in excess of the ceiling limit
\nis required  to file  a statement  under Section  6  and  by
\noperation of  Section 3,  he ceases  to hold the said vacant
\nland subject  to the  operation of  the\t provisions  of\t the
\nCeiling Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 5\tprohibits transfer  of vacant land in excess
\nof the ceiling limit at any time between commencement of the
\nappointed day  and the\tcommencement of\t the Act.  Section 6
\nenjoins the  holder of\tthe vacant land in excess of ceiling
\nlimit to  file a statement within the prescribed time in the
\nmanner laid  under  the\t Act  the  rules  and  in  the\tform
\nprescribed  therefor.\tSection\t 8   enjoins  the  competent
\nauthority to  prepare a\t draft statement  as regards  vacant
\nland  held  in\texcess\tof  the\t ceiling  limit.  Section  9
\nenvisages final\t statement after  disposal of objections, if
\nany, received  in that\tbehalf and  service of the notice in
\nthat behalf  on the  person concerned  as envisaged therein.
\nUnder Section  10(1), after  service of\t the statement under
\nSection 9  on the  concerned person, the competent authority
\nshould cause  publication of  a notification  in  the  State
\nGazette with particulars of the vacant land in excess of the
\nceiling limit,\tfor information of the general public. After
\nconsidering claims,  if any  laid under\t sub-Section (2) and
\ndisposal thereof,  the competent  authority shall  determine
\nthe nature  and extent of such claim and pass such orders as
\nit  deems   fit.  Thereafter   the  competent  authority  by
\nnotification under  Section 10(3)  published  in  the  State
\nGazette may  declare that  the excess  land published  under
\nsub-Section (1) shall he deemed to have been acquired by the
\nState Government  with effect from the date specified in the
\ndeclaration and\t such land  shall “be  deemed to have vested
\nabsolutely  in\t the  State   Government   free\t  from\t all
\nencumbrances with  effect from\tthe date  so specified”. The
\nword “deemed”  is used\tto give\t effect to  the operation of
\nSection 3  from the  date the Act was brought into force. In
\nother words,  the deemed  vesting under\t Section 10(3) would
\ndate back  to February 17, 1976 and the date specified under
\nSection 10 [3]. In Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat vs. Nori
\nVenkatarama Deekshithulu  & Ors.<\/a>  [(1991) Supp. 2 SCC 228 at
\n239] this  Court in  para 10  had held\tthat the word ‘vest’
\ntakes varied  colors from the context and situation in which
\nthe word  came to  be used  in the  statute.  It  is  common
\nknowledge that under the Act, the acquired lands vest in the
\nState from  the date  of taking possession  under Section 16
\nof 17  [2]. Under  the land reforms like abolition of estate
\nand taking  over thereof  the vesting  takes effect from the
\ndate of\t publication of\t the notification  in  the  official
\ngazette. In  Consolidated Coffee Ltd. & Anr. etc. vs. Coffee
\nBoard, Bangalore  etc. etc.  [1980) 3  SCR 625\tat 645] this
\nCourt had  held that  the word ‘deemed’ is used a great deal
\nin modern legislation in different senses and it is not that
\na deeming  provision is\t every time  made for the purpose of
\ncreating a  fiction. A\tdeeming provision is made to include
\nwhat is\t obvious or  what is  uncertain or to impose for the
\npurpose of a statute an artificial construction of a word or
\nphrase that would not otherwise prevail, but in each case it
\nwould be  a question  as to with what object the Legislature
\nhas made  such a  deeming provision.  It would\tthus be seen
\nthat determination  of the  excess ceiling  land pursuant to
\nthe statement  filed under  Section 6  becomes conclusive by
\npublication of\tthe notification  under sub-Section  (3)  of
\nSection 10  and the  excess lands were prohibited to be held
\nunder sub-Section 3 on and from the date of the commencement
\nof the\tAct. Such  excess and  shall vest  in the State only
\nfrom a date specified in the notification. The vesting under
\nSection 10  [3] takes effect from the date of publication of
\nthe notification  under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 in the
\nState Gazette  with effect  from the date specified therein.
\nIt would  thus be  apparent that the State acquired absolute
\nright, title and interest in the excess urban vacant land in
\nthe  State   from  the\t date  of  the\tpublication  of\t the
\nnotification under  Section 10\t[3] of\tthe Ceiling  Act and
\nfrom February 28, 1983 that date the State Government became
\nabsolute owner\tof the\texcess vacant  land  free  from\t all
\nencumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
     The question,  therefore, is:  whether it\tis necessary
\nfor the\t Government to\tdetermine compensation under Section
\n23 of  the Ceiling  Act for the land which already vested in
\nit under  the Ceiling Act. In Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhli
\netc. etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. [(1985) Supp.1
\nSCR 862], where the constitutionality of the Ceiling Act was
\nquestioned, the Constitution Bench had held that the primary
\nobject and  purpose of\tthe Ceiling  Act is  to acquire such
\nland as may be in excess of the ceiling limit with a view to
\nprevent concentration  of urban\t land in  the hands of a few
\npersons and speculation and profiteering therein and also to
\nbring about  an equitable  distribution\t of  land  in  urban
\nagglomerations to subserve the common good in furtherance of
\nArticle 39(c) and (b) respectively of the Constitution. this
\nview was reiterated in Union of India vs. Valluri Basavaiah
\nChaudhary<\/a> [(1979)  3 SCR  802]\tand  State  of\tGujarat\t vs.
\nParshottamdas Ramdas<\/a>  [(1988)  1  SCR  997].  In  Dattatrava
\nShankarbhat Ambalgi  & Ors.  vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.<\/a>
\n[AIR 1989  SC 1796], a Bench of two Judges of this Court had
\nheld that  the land  to the  extent which  falls within\t the
\nceiling area stands as a class different from the land which
\nis in  excess of  the ceiling  area.  It  is  liable  to  be
\ndeclared surplus  to give  effect to  the purpose and object
\nenvisaged under the Act. The Ceiling Act is a self-contained
\nCode. As  far as  the acquisition of surplus of ceiling land
\nand payment  of compensation is concerned, it is governed by
\nthe provisions\tof the\tCeiling Act. It was, therefore, held
\nthat it would not be necessary to acquire the land under the
\nMaharashtra Act\t No.37 of 1966 resulting in misuse of public
\nfunds by  granting higher  compensation, when the purpose of
\nacquisition could be achieved on payment of lesser amount of
\ncompensation prescribed in Section 11 of the Ceiling Act. In
\nParshottamdas’s case  [supra], the same question had arisen.
\nAnother Bench  of two  Judges had  held therein at page 1007
\nthat it\t is open  to the  State Government  to withdraw from
\nacquisition under  the Land  Acquisition Act  and  when\t the
\nlands under  the Ceiling  Act could  be acquired  by  paying
\ncompensation as\t provided thereunder, it would not be proper
\nto  compel   the  Government   to  acquire  them  under\t the
\nprovisions of  the Land\t Acquisition Act,  1894. As  already
\nstated, the  Act has  the overriding  effect  on  all  other
\nlaws”. In  State of M.P. vs. Surendra Kumar & Anr.<\/a> [(1995) 2
\nSCC 627],  a Bench  of two  Judges  [to\t which\tone  of\t us,
\nK.Ramaswamy, J.,  was a\t member] was  to consider whether it
\nwould be open to the Government to purchase the land pending
\nproceedings under  the Ceiling\tAct and\t publication of\t the
\ndeclaration under  Section 10 [3]. This Court at page 629 in
\npara 3 had held that two courses were open to the Government
\nin  that   situation.  The   Government\t could\t return\t the
\napplication for permission for sale; finalize the process in
\nChapter Ill or it could purchase the lands. It was held that
\nthere was  no prohibition  for the  State  to  purchase\t the
\nproperty though the declaration was not finalized.\n<\/p>\n
     It would,\tthus, be  clear that when the vacant land is
\ndeclared under\tthe Ceiling Act, it is not necessary for the
\nState to  acquire the  excess vacant land vested in it under
\nthe Act.  But unfortunate  to the  appellant that benefit of
\nthe declaration\t was unavailable  for the  reason  that\t the
\nGovernment  in\tGOMs  No.1552\/MA  dated\t May  20,  1981\t had
\npermitted  HUDA\t to  acquire  the  surplus  land  under\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act.\t In consequence, having exempted the
\nexcess vacant lands from the purview of the Ceiling Act, the
\nappellant had  denied itself of the benefit of Section 11 of
\nthe  Ceiling   Act  to\t pay  compensation   as\t  prescribed
\nthereunder. The result is that the appellant would determine
\nthe compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  question is:  whether determination of market
\nvalue at  Rs. 30\/- per sq. yd. is valid in law? The District
\nJudge had  proceeded  on  the  premise\tthat  the  HUDA\t had
\nacquired adjacent  land under the Act and had sold @ Rs.35\/-
\nper sq. yd. and that, therefore, the compensation claimed at
\nRs.30 per  square yard\tshould be  paid to  the respondents.
\nThat found  favour with\t the High Court. It is stated in the
\nevidence adduced  on behalf of the appellant that out of the
\nsale consideration  of Rs.35\/-\tper sq. yd., the cost of the
\nland was Rs.6\/- per sq.yd. and Rs. 29\/ was collected towards
\ntentative development  charges. They  were tentative  prices
\nfixed thereunder.  In  other  words,  Rs.29\/-  was  incurred
\ntowards developmental  charges and Rs.6\/- per sq.yd. was the
\nactual cost.  The sales\t took place  in the year 1976. It is
\nseen that  the lands  were being  used as  horse-stable. The
\nrespondent claimed  compensation @  Rs.30 per  sq. yd. It is
\nseen that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
\nissued on  July 27, 1978. The sales by the HUDA of the plots
\nof the\tneighboring lands  took place in the year 1976 after
\nfull development.  The lands  required\tdevelopment.  It  is
\nwell-settled law  that deduction  of  developmental  charges
\nvaries\tbetween\t 33-1\/3%  to  65%  depending  on  facts\t and
\ncircumstances in each case. view of the fact that we have in
\nevidence  tentative   developmental  charges  of  Rs.29\t per
\nincurred in  1975-76, taking  a pragmatic view we that after
\ndeducting developmental\t charges respondent  is entitled  to
\ncompensation @\tRs.8\/-\tsq.yd.\twith  a\t statutory  rate  of
\nsolatium on  enhanced compensation @ 30% and 9% interest for
\none year  from the  date of taking possession, i.e., June 2,
\n1984 and  after expiry\tof one\tyear, @ 15% till the date of
\ndeposit. The respondent is not entitled to additional amount
\nunder Section  23 [1-A]\t for the  reason that the respondent
\nhad filed  W.P No.2510\tof 1982 and  kept the matter pending
\ntill the Amendment Act became operative. The award could not
\nbe made\t on account  of the  pending proceedings in the High
\nCourt and  the same  was made  as per  the directions of the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed  but,   in\t the
\ncircumstances, without costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (3) 282, JT 1996 (3) 629 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: H.E.H., THE NIZAM, HYDERABAD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/03\/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-181150","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-27T20:23:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T20:23:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3023,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996\",\"name\":\"The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T20:23:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-27T20:23:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996","datePublished":"1996-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T20:23:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996"},"wordCount":3023,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996","name":"The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T20:23:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-h-e-h-the-nizam-hyderabad-on-22-march-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh vs H.E.H., The Nizam, Hyderabad on 22 March, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181150","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=181150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181150\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}