While dealing with a land acquisition matter, the Supreme Court has held that, as against the order passed by the Single Judge in a Writ Petition, there cannot be two contradictory orders in Writ Appeals filed against the said order by different parties, i.e. the Union of India and the State Government.

The Apex Court also held that there cannot be two contradictory orders of the High Court assailing the very same order of the Single Judge.

The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “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.”

Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Udaya Kumar Sagar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant had filed a Writ Petition before the Telangana High Court seeking a declaration that the inaction of the respondents in initiating the land acquisition proceedings in lieu of the delivery of possession of a suit schedule land as per the orders was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 300A Constitution of India. A request was also made to direct the respondents to forthwith initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land and pay the compensation amount to the petitioner without delay whatsoever in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition

Against the said order, a Writ Appeal was filed by the respondent-Union of India. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the Single Judge. However, the costs of Rs.1,00,000, which had been imposed by the Single Judge was set aside. The respondent State of Telangana had also preferred a Writ Appeal assailing the very same order of the Single Judge. Another Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned order, remanded the matter to the Single Judge. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of remand, only the State of Telangana filed an SLP, but the same was dismissed.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellant that the order of the Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its earlier order, and it was also affirmed by the Apex Court. As per the appellant, it was necessary to set aside the order passed in the Writ Appeal, which was filed by the respondent, State of Telangana.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was contrary to the order passed in the Writ Appeal, which was affirmed by the Apex Court.

The Bench stated,“It is also to be noted that the order passed by this Court was on 10.11.2025. However, the fact remains that the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is contrary to the order dated 18.11.2024 in Writ Appeal No.1294/2024, which has been affirmed by this Court. There cannot be two contradictory orders of the High Court assailing the very same order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.11883/2024. Further, the order dated 12.03.2025 which was assailed by the State of Telangana before this Court has been affirmed at the instance of the respondent-State.”

The Bench further noted that 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. The Bench also found that in the appeal, the respondent before the High Court had assailed the very same order, being aggrieved by the setting aside of the order of the Single Judge of the High Court in the Writ Petition. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 is set aside.”

Cause Title: Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin v. The Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 107)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy, Shyam Divan, Navinkumar Pahwa, AOR Sravan Kumar Karanam, Advocates P. Venkatraju, Sadhana Madhavan, M. Harshini, Advocates S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Shubhangi Arora, Rishit Vimadalal, AOR M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co.

Respondent: Advocates S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, B.D.L. Nirmal Kumar, Shubhangi Arora, AOR M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, ASG Satya Darshi Sanjay, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Khushal Kolwar, Aashna Gill, Piyush Beriwal, Merusagar Samantary, Navroop Jawanda, Medha Trivedi, Kumar Abhishek, Santosh Kumar Yadav, G. Sushmita, AOR Sravan Kumar Karanam

Click here to read/download Judgment






Justice BV NagarathnaJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.