{"id":226544,"date":"2004-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004"},"modified":"2017-04-19T00:24:02","modified_gmt":"2017-04-18T18:54:02","slug":"govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S V Patil<\/div>\n
Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, B.N. Srikrishna<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6546 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nGovt. of A.P. & Anr.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSyed Akbar\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/11\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nSHIVARAJ V. PATIL & B.N. SRIKRISHNA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nW I T H<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4110 OF 2000<\/p>\n
Shivaraj V. Patil J.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6546 OF 1999<\/p>\n
\tThe State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal questioning
\nthe validity and correctness of the impugned order made by
\nthe Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 411
\nof 1998.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe few facts which are relevant and necessary for the
\ndisposal of this appeal are the following:
\n\tAn extent of 1573 sq. yds. in survey No. 54\/2 of
\nKakaguda village in Hyderabad district was acquired by the
\nState for improvement of Hyderabad-Karimnagar-
\nRamagundam Road which included the land of the
\nrespondent to the extent of 8 guntas (968 sq. yds.).  After
\ncompleting the acquisition proceedings, the possession of
\nthe said land was taken.  Aggrieved by the amount of
\ncompensation determined @ Rs. 1400 per sq. yds., the
\nrespondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act,1894 (for short ‘the Land Acquisition Act)
\nseeking enhancement of compensation amount and the
\nreference is pending disposal before the Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tOut of the land so acquired, only 424 sq. yds., of land
\nwas utilized and the rest of the land remained vacant.  The
\nResident Engineer (Roads & Buildings) addressed a letter
\ndated 27.12.1996 to the Land Acquisition Officer (Special
\nCollector) informing him that it was difficult to protect the
\nunused land from future encroachment.  Having come to
\nknow about this letter, the respondent made
\nrepresentations to the District Collector to re-assign unused
\nland to him and that he was prepared to reimburse the
\ncompensation that had been received by him along with
\ninterest.  He also indicated that he was prepared to give up
\nhis claim for enhancement of compensation to that extent
\nof land.  There was no response from the collector.  The
\nrespondent filed a writ petition No. 14062\/97 in the High
\nCourt seeking a writ of mandamus to the authorities to re-
\nassign the unused land to him.  He based his claim on the
\nStanding Order No. 90 (32) of the A.P. Board of Revenue.
\nA learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the
\nwrit petition on 4.7.1997 directing the District Collector to
\nconsider the request of the respondent for re-assigning of
\nthe unused land in the light of the order of the Board of
\nRevenue aforementioned having regard to the letter of the
\nResident Engineer dated 27.12.1996  and by collecting the
\namount of compensation already paid with 12% interest.
\nPursuant to the directions given in Writ Petition No. 14062
\nof 1997 the respondent made representation to the
\nauthorities seeking re-assignment of unused land.  The
\nDistrict Collector by his order dated 18.10.1997 rejected
\nthe said representation, holding that the said land was
\nsuitable for construction of Mandal Office.  In this order the
\nDistrict Collector referred to the judgments of the Supreme
\nCourt in State of Kerala and others vs. M. Bhaskaran
\nPillai and<\/a> another [(1997) 5 SCC 432], and Sri Gulam
\nMustafa and others vs. State of Maharashtra and
\nothers<\/a> [AIR 1977 SC 448].  As against this order of the
\nDistrict Collector the respondent filed another writ petition
\nNo. 33171 of 1997 in the High Court.  The learned single
\nJudge, after considering the contentions of the parties, by
\norder dated 2.1.1998, allowed the writ petition directing the
\nauthorities to hand over the unused portion of the land to
\nthe respondent by collecting the amount of compensation
\nalready paid with interest at the rate of 12%.   It may be
\nadded here itself that para 32 of the Board’s Standing Order
\nNo. 90 was amended by the Government Order dated
\n9.10.1998 to the effect that in case the land acquired
\nremains unused for any reason, it could be utilized for any
\nother public purpose as deemed fit.  Aggrieved by the order
\nof the learned Single Judge, the State filed a writ appeal
\nbefore the High Court.  By the impugned appeal, the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court held that apart from the
\nBoard’s standing order 90(32), Section 54-A of the Andhra
\nPradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act (for short `the
\nAct’)  also supported the case of the respondent.  The
\nDivision Bench also took the view that the proposal to
\nconstruct Mandal Revenue Office building in the unused
\nland was an after-thought and was made with a view to
\ncircumvent the order passed by the learned Single Judge
\nand even otherwise, the unused land in question was so
\nsmall that it would not be sufficient to construct any
\nbuilding.  Having held so, the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt dismissed the writ appeal by the judgment which is
\nunder challenge in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts are not in dispute.  The questions that arise
\nfor consideration are whether direction could be given to
\nthe appellants to re-assign unused land to the respondent
\nwhich was duly acquired by the authorities and the
\nacquisition proceedings had become final except that the
\nreference is pending before the Reference Court only with
\nregard to enhancement of compensation and whether the
\nBoard’s Standing Order No. 90(32) and Section 54-A of the
\nAct can be applied for reassignment of the unused land in
\nfavour of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellants contended that
\nonce the land is acquired in accordance with law which
\nvests in the Government free from all encumbrances, no
\ndirection could be given to re-convey the unutilized land
\nwhich is part of the acquired land;  Section 54-A of the Act
\nis not at all applicable to the facts of the present case; the
\nStanding Order No. 90(32) of the Board of Revenue has no
\nstatutory force and at any rate it cannot override the
\nprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act and that the Division
\nBench of the High Court was not correct in observing that
\nthe unused land was not sufficient for the purpose of
\nconstruction of the Mandal Revenue Officer; it was for the
\nconcerned authorities to examine the sufficiency or
\notherwise of the available land.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent
\nmade submissions supporting the impugned order for the
\nvery reasons stated in it.  In his argument, he reiterated
\nthe submissions that were made before the High Court.
\nAccording to him, having regard to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, this Court may not interfere with
\nthe impugned order exercising jurisdiction under Article 136
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn order to appreciate the respective contentions
\nadvanced on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to
\nnotice relevant portion of the Standing Order No. 90(32) of
\nBoard of Revenue and Section 54-A of the Act.
\nThe Board’s standing order<\/p>\n
“32.\tDisposal of land which is no longer required
\nfor the public purpose for which it was acquired.\n<\/p>\n
Notes  (1) No land shall be disposed of, under
\nthis paragraph, to any person other than the
\ncitizen of India, except by the Collector or the
\nBoard and with the previous permission of State
\nGovernment, every grant made under this
\nparagraph shall be subject to the condition that,
\nif the land is alienated without the sanction of
\nGovernment in favour of any person other than a
\ncitizen of India, the grant shall thereupon
\nbecome null and void.\n<\/p>\n
\t…………………………………………………\n<\/p>\n
When land acquired for a public purpose, is
\nsubsequently relinquished, it should be disposed
\nof as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tIf the land relinquished is likely to be again
\nrequired for public purposes, it should be
\nmerely leased out for such term as may be
\nconsidered, desirable in each case.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\t…………….\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t…………….\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tIf the land is not declared unfit for
\npermanent occupation under clause (i) or\n<\/p>\n
(ii) above and was agricultural or pastoral
\nland at the time of the acquisition, it should
\nbe disposed of in accordance with the
\nfollowing instructions which should not be
\ndeviated from without the previous
\nsanction of State Government: –\n<\/p>\n
 \tSuch lands should be notified for sale
\nin public auction by giving wide publicity in
\nrespect of the sales in the villages by beat
\nor tom-tom and affixing notice of sales in
\nconspicuous places in the villages
\nconcerned.  The date of sale should be
\nfixed allowing an interval of thirty days
\nbetween the date of publicity and the date
\nof sale.  The land should be sold by public
\nauction subject to the annual assessment.
\nThere shall be no upset price except in the
\ncase of railway relinquished lands where a
\nminimum or upset price should be fixed in
\nconsultation with Railway Administration
\nbefore auction.  If at the time of sale
\nanybody puts forth his claim in respect of
\nany field either as an adjacent owner, or as
\nan original owner or as heir of the original
\nowner, the sale of that field should be
\nstopped and his claim investigated and
\ndisposed of in the manner specified in sub-
\nclause (2) and (3).  If it is found that his
\nclaim is not proved, the field should be sold
\nby public auction.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe amendment to paragraph 32 of Board’s Standing
\nOrder No. 90(32) brought about by G.O.Ms. No. 783 dated
\n9.10.1998 reads:\n<\/p>\n
“For paragraph 32 of B.S.O. 90, the following
\nparagraph shall be substituted, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
PARA 32  Utilisation of acquired lands for any
\nother Public Purpose:\n<\/p>\n
“The land acquired for a public purpose under
\nthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be utilized
\nfor the same purpose for which it was acquired
\nas far as possible.  In case, the land is not
\nrequired for the purpose for which it is acquired
\ndue to any reason, the land shall be utilized for
\nany other public purpose, as deemed it,
\nincluding afforestation.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 54-A of the Act reads:\n<\/p>\n
“Procedure in respect of land acquired for
\npurpose of public benefit and no more required
\nWhen agricultural or pasturage land acquired for
\npublic benefit is no longer required, the patta
\nthereof shall be made in the name of the person
\nor his successor from whom such land was
\nacquired, provided he consents to refund the
\ncompensation originally paid to him.  If such
\nperson or his successor does not take the land, it
\nmay be given on patta under Section 54.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is neither debated nor disputed as regards the valid
\nacquisition of the land in question under the provisions of
\nthe Land Acquisition Act and the possession of the land had
\nbeen taken.  By virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition
\nAct, the acquired land has vested absolutely in the
\nGovernment free from all encumbrances.  Under Section 48
\nof the Land Acquisition Act, Government could withdraw
\nfrom the acquisition of any land of which possession has not
\nbeen taken.  In the instant case, even under Section 48,
\nthe Government could not withdraw from acquisition or to
\nre-convey the said land to the respondent as the possession
\nof the land had already been taken.  The position of law is
\nwell settled.  In State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. M.
\nBhaskaran Pillai & Anr. [(1997) 5 SCC 432], para 4 of
\nthe said judgment reads:-\n<\/p>\n
“4.\tIn view of the admitted position that the
\nland in question was acquired under the Land
\nAcquisition Act, 1894 by operation of Section 16
\nof the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the
\nState free from all encumbrances. The question
\nemerges whether the Government can assign
\nthe land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law
\nthat if the land is acquired for a public purpose,
\nafter the public purpose was achieved, the rest
\nof the land could be used for any other public
\npurpose. In case there is not other public
\npurpose for which the land is needed, then
\ninstead of disposal by way of sale to the
\nerstwhile owner, the land should be put to public
\nauction and the amount fetched in the public
\nauction can be better utilised for the public
\npurpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of
\nthe Constitution. In the present case, what we
\nfind is that the executive order is not in
\nconsonance with the provision of the Act and is,
\ntherefore, invalid. Under these circumstances,
\nthe Division Bench is well justified in declaring
\nthe executive order as invalid. Whatever
\nassignment is made, should be for a public
\npurpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government
\nshould be sold only through the public auctions
\nso that the public also gets benefited by getting
\na higher value.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn that case, an extent of 1.94 acres of land was
\nacquired in 1952 for construction of National Highway and
\nthe construction was completed in 1955 in 80 cents of land
\nand the balance of land remained unused.  The remaining
\nland was sought to be sold to the land owner at the same
\nrate at which the compensation was awarded under Section\n<\/p>\n
11.  This again was challenged in the writ petitions.  The
\nGovernment tried to sustain the action on the basis of the
\nexecutive order issued by the Government for permission
\nfor alienation of the land.  On these facts, the position of
\nlaw was made clear in para 4 extracted above.  Thus, it is
\nclear that under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the
\nacquired land should vest in the State free from all
\nencumbrances and that any executive order inconsistent
\nwith the provisions of Land Acquisition Act was invalid.
\nFurther that if the land is acquired for a public purpose,
\nafter the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land
\ncould be used for any other public purpose.  In our view,
\nthis decision supports the case of the appellants fully.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil & Anr.
\nvs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.<\/a> [(1996) 6 SCC 405],
\nclaim of the petitioner for restitution of the possession of
\nthe land acquired pursuant to the resolution of the State
\nGovernment was rejected.  In para 2, this Court observed
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
“2…….. We do not think that this Court would be
\njustified in making direction for restitution of the
\nland to the erstwhile owners when the land was
\ntaken way back and vested in the Municipality
\nfree from all encumbrances.  We are not
\nconcerned with the validity of the notification in
\neither of the writ petitions.  It is axiomatic that
\nthe land acquired for a public purpose would be
\nutilized for any other public purpose, though use
\nof it was intended for the original public purpose.
\nIt is not intended that any land which remained
\nunutilized, should be restituted to the erstwhile
\nowner to whom adequate compensation was
\npaid according to the market value as on the
\ndate of the notification.  Under these
\ncircumstances, the High Court was well justified
\nin refusing to grant relief in both the writ
\npetitions.”\n<\/p>\n
\tYet in another recent decision, this Court in Northern
\nIndian Glass Industries vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors.<\/a>
\n[(2003) 1 SCC 335] referring to the case of Chandragauda
\nRamgonda Patil (supra) and other cases held that “if the
\nland was not used for the purpose for which it was
\nacquired, it was open to the State Government to take
\naction but that did not confer any right on the respondents
\nto ask for restitution of the land”.  Paras 10 and 11 of the
\nsaid judgment read thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“10.\tIn Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil vs. State
\nof Maharashtra<\/a> [(1996) 6 SCC 405] it is stated
\nthat the acquired land remaining unutilized was
\nnot intended to be restituted to the erstwhile
\nowner to whom adequate compensation was
\npaid according to the market value as on the
\ndate of notification.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tYet again in C.Padma Vs. Dy. Secy. To the
\nGovt. of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC 627], it is held that
\nacquired land having vested in the State and the
\ncompensation having been paid to the claimant,
\nhe was not entitled to restitution of possession
\non the ground that either original public purpose
\nhad ceased to be in operation or the land could
\nnot be used  for other purpose.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the position of law made clear in the
\naforementioned decisions, it follows that (1) under Section
\n16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land acquired vests in
\nthe Government absolutely free from all encumbrances; (2)
\nthe land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for
\nany other public purpose; and (3) the acquired land which
\nis vested in the Government free from all encumbrances
\ncannot be re-assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner
\nmerely on the basis of an executive order.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt the hearing, we specifically asked learned counsel
\nfor the respondent whether the Board’s Standing Order
\n90(32) was issued under any particular statute, the learned
\ncounsel was not able to point out to any provision of law
\nunder which it was issued.  He was not in a position to show
\nthat the said order bears any statutory force.  Even
\notherwise, as per para 32 of the said order, the land
\nacquired, no longer required for the public purpose for
\nwhich it was acquired, could not be disposed of in favour of
\nany person other than the citizen of India and that too
\nwithout the sanction of the Government .  If the land
\nacquired for the public purpose is specifically relinquished,
\nsuch land could be disposed of as stated in the said
\nparagraph.  If the land relinquished is likely to be again
\nrequired for public purposes, it should be merely leased out
\nfor such term as may be considered desirable in each case.
\nIf the acquired land was an agricultural land at the time of
\nacquisition, it should be disposed of inviting for sale in
\npublic auction by giving wide publicity in respect of sale.  If
\nat the time of sale, anybody puts forth his claim in respect
\nof any field either as an adjacent owner or as an original
\nowner, the sale of that field should be stopped and his claim
\ninvestigated and disposed of in the manner specified in sub-
\nclauses (i) and (iv) of Note (2) of the Board’s order 90(32).
\nIf it is found that his claim is not proved, the field should be
\nsold by public auction.  In the case on hand, there is
\nnothing on record to show that the part of the acquired land
\nwhich remained unused was relinquished by the
\nGovernment.  A letter of Resident Engineer stated that the
\nunused land was no more required cannot amount to
\nrelinquishment of the said land by the competent authority.
\nIn order to make a claim under para 32 of the said Board’s
\nStanding Order in the first place, it was necessary that the
\ncompetent authority had subsequently relinquished the
\nunused land.  After such relinquishment of the land, the
\nland had to be notified for sale in public auction.  If at the
\ntime of sale of such land, the original owner made a claim,
\nsale could be stopped and his claim could be investigated
\nand thereafter the land was to be disposed of in the manner
\nspecified under the said paragraph.  Added to this, by virtue
\nof the amendment to para 32 brought about by G.O.Ms. No.
\n783 dated 9.10.1998, the land for the public purpose  shall
\nbe utilized for the same purpose for which it was acquired
\nas far as possible and in case the land is not used for the
\npurpose for which it was acquired due to any reason, the
\nland shall be utilized for any other public purpose as
\ndeemed fit.  It appears this amendment was not brought to
\nthe notice of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tChapter V of the Act deals with occupation of khalsa
\nland and right of occupant.  Under Section 54, procedure is
\nprescribed for acquiring unoccupied land.  This Section
\nenables a person to submit a petition to Tehsildar if he is
\ndesirous of taking unoccupied land.  On such application,
\nthe Tehsildar may in accordance with the rules made by the
\nGovernment give permission in writing for occupation.
\nSection 54-A indicates the procedure in respect of land
\nacquired for the purpose of public benefit and which is no
\nmore required.  It is clear from plain and clear language of
\nthe said Section that when an agricultural land acquired for
\npublic benefit is no longer required, the patta thereof shall
\nbe made in the name of the person or his successor from
\nwhom such land was acquired provided he consents to
\nrefund the compensation originally paid to him.  This
\nSection does not say that the agricultural land acquired for
\npublic benefit is no longer required for the purpose for
\nwhich it is acquired.  This Section can be attracted only in a
\ncase where agricultural land acquired for public benefit is no
\nlonger required not necessarily for the specific purpose for
\nwhich it was acquired.  Added to this, that the land is no
\nmore required is a decision required to be made by the
\ncompetent authority.  As in the present case, mere letter of
\nResident Engineer that the unused land is no more required
\nis not enough.  When the land is acquired under the Land
\nAcquisition Act which is vested in the State Government
\nfree from all encumbrances, the question of reconveying
\nthe land as claimed by the respondent could not be
\naccepted in view of the clear position of law stated in the
\ndecisions of this Court aforementioned.  Whether the
\nunused remaining land out of the acquired land was
\nsufficient or not for the purpose of construction of Mandal
\nRevenue Office could not be decided by the High Court.  It
\nwas for the competent authorities to decide about the
\nsame.  The High Court, in  our view, was not right in saying
\nthat the proposal to construct the Mandal Revenue Office in
\nthe unused land  acquired was an after-thought.  No
\nmaterial was placed on record to attribute any mala fides
\non the part of the authorities or to support the case that the
\nproposal to build a Mandal Revenue Office was an after-
\nthought.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus viewed from any angle, we find it difficult to
\nsustain the impugned order.  Consequently, it is set aside
\nand the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.
\nThe appeal is allowed accordingly.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4110 OF 2000<\/p>\n
\tThe building bearing No. 21\/1\/683 situated at
\nKokarwadi, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad belonging to respondent
\nno. 1 was acquired by erstwhile Hyderabad Government for
\nKokarwadi Scheme of the then City Improvement Board.
\nThe award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act on
\n25.7.1953 and compensation was paid to the respondent
\nno. 1.  In 1956, the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board was
\nestablished and all the properties of the then City
\nImprovement Board stood transferred and vested in the
\nAndhra Pradesh Housing Board, the appellant herein.  Since
\nthe Kokarwadi Scheme was abandoned, the building in
\nquestion was leased out to the respondent no. 2.  The
\nrespondent no. 1 made representation to the appellant
\nseeking reconveyance of the building on payment of
\ncompensation amount with interest relying on Standing
\nOrder No. 90(32) of the Board of Revenue.  On 28.9.1979,
\nappellant passed resolution for disposing of the property
\nand similar other properties to the tenants.  On 6.2.1989,
\nthe appellant rejected the representation of the respondent
\nno. 1.  Under the circumstances, the respondent no. 1-
\nerstwhile owner of the building filed a original suit in  City
\nCivil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a mandatory injunction for
\nre-conveyance of the building and possession of the same.
\nThe appellant contested the suit.  The trial court decreed
\nthe suit in favour of the respondent no. 1 relying on the
\nStanding Order No. 90(32) of the Board of Revenue.  The
\nrespondent no. 2 here who was in occupation of the
\nproperty as a tenant was defendant no. 2 in the suit.  The
\nappellant filed first appeal before the 4th Additional Chief
\nJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.  The second respondent
\ndid not prefer any appeal against the decree made by the
\ntrial court.  The Addl. Chief Judge dismissed the first appeal
\naffirming the decree made by the trial court.  The appellant
\nfiled the second appeal before the High Court which was
\nalso dismissed.  Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the parties in this appeal also
\nmade similar submissions that were made in Civil Appeal
\n6546 of 1999 bringing to our notice facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
In the view we have taken in Civil Appeal No.
\n6546\/1999 dealing with the Board’s Standing Order No.
\n90(32) and Section 54-A of the Act and keeping in view the
\nsettled position of law, this appeal is also entitled to
\nsucceed.  Under the circumstances it is unnecessary to deal
\nwith other contentions.  Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
\nThe impugned judgment is set aside and the suit filed by
\nrespondent no. 1 (plaintiff)  is dismissed with no order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004 Author: S V Patil Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, B.N. Srikrishna CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6546 of 1999 PETITIONER: Govt. of A.P. & Anr. RESPONDENT: Syed Akbar DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/11\/2004 BENCH: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & B.N. SRIKRISHNA JUDGMENT: J […]<\/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-226544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGovt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004 - 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\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-18T18:54:02+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-18T18:54:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":4006,\"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\\\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004\",\"name\":\"Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-18T18:54:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004 - 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\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-18T18:54:02+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-18T18:54:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004"},"wordCount":4006,"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\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004","name":"Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-18T18:54:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-a-p-anr-vs-syed-akbar-on-19-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs Syed Akbar on 19 November, 2004"}]},{"@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\/226544","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=226544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}