[ 3183 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction) /

IVIONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITION N:7213OF 08

Between:

1. Kandadi Yadi ReddY, (Died Per LR)

2. Smt.K.Chandra Kala Wo.Late K.Yadi Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ:

Household,

3. K.Sanjeeva Reddy S/o.Late K.Yadi Reddy' Aged about 52 years,

Occ:Business,

4. K.Brahmananda Reddy, S/o.Late K. Yadi Reddy, aged about 49 years, Occ:

Agriculture,

5.K.ChandrasekharReddy,S/o'LateK.YadiReddy,Agedabout4Tyears,Occ:

Agriculture,

6. K.srinivas Reddy, S/o.Late K.Yadi Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ:

Agriculture,

T.K.DayandReddyS/o.LateYadiReddy,agedabout44years,Occ:Business'

AllareRl/o.BalapurVillage,saroornagarMandal,RangaReddyDistrict'

(petitioners 2 lo 7 are brought on record as LRs of deceased 1"t

ietitioner as per C.O.dt'2914115 in WPMP No'rt4138/14)

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The Director of Appeals, office of the chief commissioner of Land

Administration, Andhra Pradesh' Hyderabad'

2. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling'

Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Ariicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the

r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High eourt may be pleased

to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wnt of

(lertiorari calling for the records from the first respondent in proceedings

No.HYD/24/2007 and quash the order dated 19.12.2007, confirming the order of teh

second respondent in Proceedings No.D2l10492176 and 10494/1976 dated

21.01 .2007 , in respect of the petitioners lands in Survey No.27, 28, 29, 39 and 4l of

Roshandoula Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal,

contrary to law, without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice.

l.A. NO: 2OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 30644oF 20171

Petition under section 1 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the

Petitioners substitute the prayer in the writ Petition with the following prayer: "lt is

therefore prayed that this Hon 'ble court may be pleased to issue an appropriate

writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of certiorari,

calling for records in Proceedings No HyD/24l2007, order dated 19-12-2007 on the

file of the First Respondent confirming the order dated 24-1-2007 of the second

Respondent in Proceedings No.D2110492176 and 10494176 and all consequential

proceedings under Section g dated 24-01-2007, 10(1), i0(3) dated 28_.1-2008

(Published in Gazette No.32 dated 01-02-2008, Notice under '10(5)

dated B-2-2oo8

and 10(6) dated 11-03-2008 and Panchanama dated 12-3-2oo1 of the second

Respondent in respect of the Petitioners lands in Sy.Nos.27, 29, 29, 39 and 47 of

Roshandoula Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as quash the same

as being illegal, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of

natural justice and Articles 1a, 19(g), 2'1 and 300-4 of the constitution and pass such

other order or orders as this Hon 'ble court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

l.A. NO: 1 OF2008(wPMP. NO: 9476oF 2008)

Petrtion under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend

the operation of the order daled 24.01 .2007 in C.C.No.10492176 and 10494176

passed by the second respondent in respect of the petitioner's land in Survey No.27,

28, 29, 39 and 47 of Roshandoula Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, as confirmed by the first respondent in Proceedings N6.HYD/24I2007 dated

19.12.2007 , including execution thereof.

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 306420F 2017

Between:

1. Kandadi Yadi Reddy, (Died per LR)

2. Smt.K.Chandra Kala W/o.Late K.Yadi Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ

Household,

3. K.Sanjeeva Reddy Sio.Late K.Yadi Reddy, Aged about 52 years,

Occ:Business,

4. K.Brahmananda Reddy, S/o.Late K. Yadi Reddy, aged about 49 years, Occ:

Agriculture,

5. K.Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o.Late K. Yadi Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ:

Agriculture,

6. K.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Late K.Yadi Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ:

Agriculture,

7. K.Dayand Reddy S/o.Late Yadi Reddy, aged about 44 yearc, Occ:Business,

All are Fl/o.Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(Petitioners 2 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of deceased 1"t

Petitioner as per C.O.dt.29/4/15 in WPMP No.44138/14)

...PETITlONER

AND

)

1. The Director of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land

Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,

Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

3. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue

Department, Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

...PROPOSED RESPONDENTS

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may b,e pleased ro implead

lhe Third Respondent herein (State of relangana) as Respondent in the above wril

Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.V.DURGA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. cp FOR ASSIGNMENT

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAO

I

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REODY

WRIT PETITION No.7213 of 2O0a

Dated: 08.06.2026

Between

Kandadi Yadi Reddy (Died per LRs)

...PETITIONERS

And

The Director of Appeal,

Office of the Chlef Commissioner of

Land Administration,

Hyderabad and others.

...RESPONDENTS

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for

records from the respondent No.1 in Proceedings No.HYD/24/2OO7

and quash the order dated 79.12.2007 whereby order of the

respondent No.2 in Proceedings No.D2l10492/76 and 10494/7976

dated 21.01.2007 has been confirmed in respect of the land of the

petitioners in Sy.Nos.28, 29, 39 and 47 of Roshandoula Village,

Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition

are as under:

(a) The petitioner No.1 (deceased), his father Late Kandadi

Venkataiah @ Venkat Reddy filed declarations in

CC. Nos. D2l 10492176 and LO4941L976 under Section 6(1) of the

2

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, !976 (for,short'the ULC

Act'). The father of the petitioner No.1 died on 23.O7.1976.

Draft statement under Section 8(1) along with notice under Section

8(3) of the ULC Act was issued to the petitioner on 29.01.1994.

Later, as objections were not filed, final statement was issued

under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act determining the declarants as

surplus holders for an extent of 1,64,5t6.56 sq. meters and

7,44,282.26 sq. meters respectively. The petitioner No.1 filed an

appeal in Proceedings No.HYD/24/2OO7 before the respondent No.1

under Section 33 of the ULC Act challenging Section 8(4) order by

contending that the mandatory notice of 8(3) draft order under

Section 8(1) of the ULC Act was not served on the petitioner No.1.

Along with the appeal, the petitioner No.1 flled stay petition.

It appears orders were not passed by the respondent No.1 in the

stay petition.

(b) In the meanwhile, the petitioner No.1 came to know that

the notification issued under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was

published by the respondent No.2. During the pendency of the

appeal No.HYD/24/2007, the petitioner No.1 filed another appeal on

f5.07.2006 challenging Section 10(3) notification. However, interim

orders have not been passed by the respondent No.1. Ultimately,

orders were passed by the respondent No.1 on 04.08,2006.

3

3. The case of the petitioners is that after three decades the

respondent No.2 reopened proceedings in cc.trto.iZlf O4g4/76

pertaining to his father without bringing legal heirs on record and

order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act was passed on 2.O1.2007

and without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner No.1

in the appeal, the impugned order dated 19.12.2OO7 was passed by

the respondent No. 1.

4. In the counter filed by the respondent No.2, it is contended

that declarations were filed by the father of the petitioner,

K. Venkat Reddy and the petitioner under Section 6(1) of the ULC

Act in file No.D2/10492 and 10494/76. They were provisionally

determined surplus to an extent of 64,749/76 sq. meters in

Sy.Nos.27, 28,29,39 and 47 of Roshandoula Village (patta stand

in the name of Kandadi Venkat Reddy) and an extent of

1,00,766.80 sq. meters in Sy.Nos.144lL4 and 145/74, Balapur

Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, total land being

1,65,516.56 sq. meters. Out of which, an extent of 1000 sq. meters

was allowed to be retained under Section a(l)(b) of the ULC Act

and an extent of 20.234.3O sq. meters was allowed under

G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 as the lands were situated in

peripheral area. The remaining extent of 7,44,282.26 sq. meters

was determined as surplus land against the declarants.

4

5. It is stated that the petitioner No.1, who is the successor of

K. Venkat Reddy, filed a separate declaration stating that he is the

legal heir, but he dld not produce any evidence in respect of his

claim that the lands are ancestral properties. As the petitioner No 1

did not have title to the lands mentioned in the declarations, the

same were computed to the holding of K. Venkat Reddy'

Accordingly, statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act along

with notice under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act was issued on

29.Ol.2OO4, which were served on 14.O7.2005 and declarants had

not filed any objections to the notice and draft statement. Hence,

final order under Section 8(a) of the ULC Act was passed on

18.03.20024 confirming the draft statement under Section 8(1) and

notice under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act, by clubbing both

decla ratio ns.

6. It is further stated that the orders passed by the respondent

No.2 were challenged in Appeal No.HYD/48/2006 by the petitioner

No.1 before the respondent No.1 under Section 33 of the ULC Act.

The appellate authority remanded the matter on 29.08.2006 for

fresh disposal. After re-verification of the entire matter, revised

order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act and final statement under

Section 9 of the ULC Act was issued on 24.O1.2OO7 declaring

K. Venkat Reddy, died per LRs, as surplus holder to an extent of

f ,t2,371.95 sq. meters. The petitioner No.1 filed an appeal under

5

Section 33 of the ULC Act against the revised 8(4) order and final

statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act dated 24.01.2007 before

the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed on

t9.L2.2OO7. Subsequently, declaration Section 10(3) was issued on

28.01.2008 and published in A.P. Gazette No,32 dated 01.02.2008.

Notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on

08.02.2008 to surrender the excess land determined as surplus

within thirty days. As the declarants did not surrender the land, the

proceedings under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act was issued on

11.03.2008 and possession was taken over by the Enquiry Officer

on 12.03.2008 under the cover of panchanama.

7. In the counter affidavlt filed by the respondent No.2, at paras

No.4 and 5, it is stated. that the appeal was filed by the petitioner

under Section 33 of the Act challenging Section 8(4) order and final

statement under Section 9 of the Act dated 24.OL.2Oo7. The appeal

was dismissed on f9.f2.2OO7 . Thereafter, declaration under

Section 10(3) of the Act was issued on 28.01.2008 and notice

under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 08.02.2008 to

surrender excess land determined as surplus within thirty (30)

days. As the declarant did not surrender the land within the

stipulated time, proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act was

issued on 11.03.2008 and possession was taken over by the

Enquiry Officer on 12.03.2008 under the cover of panchanama.

6

8. As per dlrection of this Court by order dated 03.02.2026,

the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment produced

the original record. On verifying the records, it is noticed that

original Section 10(5) of the Act was signed by the respondent No.2

on 08.02.2008 [which has two page numbers viz. Page No.342

(Blue Ink) and 462 (Red Ink)1. There is no endorsement of service

of notice on the original Section 10(5) notice. On the Photostat copy

of Section 10(5) notice [page 383 (Blue Ink) and Page 396 (Red

Ink)1, there is an endorsement "Smce the declarant shifted to the

House and whereabouts not known, the 10(5) order has been

affixed on the Gram Panchayat, Balapur (v) Saroornagar (M) RR

Dist before the following persons." Signed by 1) Bheem Rao and 2)

Saidaiah and "Attested" on 12.02.2008 by EO" in the photostat

copies, which is found missing in the original Section 10(5) notice.

The Section 10(6) order, at Page No.346 of the original record,

says thlrty (30) days time glven in the notice under Section 10(5)

oF the Act expired on 08.03.2008. Thus, as seen from the

endorsement rn the notice under Section 10(5), if thirty (30) days

time is to be calculated from the date of affixture in the Gram

Panchayat i.e. 12.02.2008, the thirty (30) days time would expire

on 13/14.03 2008 and not on 08.03.2008.

7

9. Rule 5(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules,

1976, deals with the procedure for service of notice on the

declarant, which is extracted below:

5, Particulars to be contained in draft statement as

regards vacant lands and manner of service of the

same. -

(1) Every draft statement prepared under sub-section (1) of

Section 8 shall contain the particulars specified in Form III'

(2) (a) The draft statement shall be served, together with

the notice referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 3, on-

(i) the holder of the vacant lands, and

(ii) all other persons, so far as maybe known, who have,

or are llkely to have, any claim to, or interest in the

ownership or possession or both, of the vacant lands-

by sending the same by registered post addressed to the

person concerned- --

(i) in the case of the holder of the vacant lands, to his

address as given in the statement filed in pursuance oF

sub-section (1) of Section 6, and

(ii) in the case of other persons at their last known

addresses.

(b) Where the draft statement and the notice are

returned as refused by the addressee, the same shall be

deemed to have been duly served on such person

(c) Where the efforts to serve the draft statement and the

notice, on the holder of the vacant lands or, as the case

may be, any other person referred to in clause (a), in the

manner specified in that clause is not successful for reasons

other than the reason referred to in clause (b), the draft

statement and notice shall be served by affixing copies of

the same in a conspicuous place in the office of the

8

competent authority and also upon some conspicuous part

of the house (if any) ln which the holder of the vai'ant lands

or as the case may be, the other person is known to have

last resided or carried on business or personally worked for

gain.

10, However, for service of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act

on the person in possession of the property no specific mode of

service is prescribed, Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, which

are relevant, are extracted below:

"10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling

limit -

(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State

Government under sub-section (3), the competent authority

may, by notice rn writing, order any person who may be in

possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to

the State Government or to any person duly authorized by

the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the

servrce of the notice.

(6) If any person refuses or farls to comp y with an order

made under sub-sectton (5), the competent authority may

take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to

the concerned State Government in this behalf and may for

that purpose use such force as may be necessary."

11, The counter of the respondent No.2 does not clearly state

about service of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act to the

declarant or the legal heirs (petitioners herein) in person and it is

stated that Section 10(5) notice was issued on 02.Og.2O0g.

:,.

9

How service of notice was effected is not clearly stated in the

counter. As discussed in Para 8, there is an endorsement that

Section 10(5) notice has been affixed in the Gram Panchayat,

Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, since

the declarant shifted his house and whereabouts are not known.

11. In a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.6130 of 2016

(Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia v. State of Gujarat) dated

06.07.2026, the Supreme Court, having considered the provisions

of the ULC Act, particularly Section 10 and the earlier judgments in

STATE OF U.P. v. HARI RAM (supra 2); State of Assam v.

Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma [(2015) 5 SCC 321] and AP Electrical

Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar [2025 SCC OnLine SC 447],

held at para 22.8 as follows:

"22.8 Similarly, we are unable to agree with the contention

of the respondents that the appellants cannot clam a right

to receive notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act.

The propriety of the sale deed executed in favour of the

appellants is immaterial. Section 10(5) mandates the deliver

of notice to the person(s) in possession of the concerned

lands. On the date of issuance of notice (22.11.1990), the

appellants as possessors did not receive the same. It was

sent to the erstwhile owner of the subject land. This also

implies that the respondents also were aware of the fact

that actual possession was not with them and there was a

need to issue notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act

before taking over actual possession. However, the

respondents did not ascertain as to in whose name actual

t0

possession stood. Therefore, no notice was issued to the

I

appellants and hence there being no transfer of possession

rn accordance with Section 10 oF the ULC Act, it continues

with the appellants both in fact as well as in law. Hence,

they are entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Repealinq

Act as they do not fall within the scope of Section 3 of the

said Act, which is the savings clause. The omission to issue

notice to the appellants violated the mandatory requirement

of serving notrce under Section 10(5) and meant that the

legal process of acquiring possession was stlll ongoing,

leading to abatement of proceedings under Section 5 of the

Repealing act on it s enforcement,"

L2. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment has not been

able to convince this Court that the service by affixture of notice

under Section 10(5) in the office of the Gram Panchayat is a proper

mode of service. No specific rule or judicial precedent is cited to

substantiate that service of notice by affixture in gram panchayat is

a valrd service. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent

No.2/authorized officer ought to have conducted local enquiry and

ensured proper service of notice on the declarant/LRs at their

residential address on new address if they have shifted.

13. It is necessary to note that the endorsement "...The 10(5)

order has been affixed on the office of Gram Panchayat..." is not

found in the original Section 10(5) notice but only available in the

photostat copies, which Further throws suspicion on the veracity of

such photostat copy referred to above.

ll

74. In the light of the above observations,

this Court is of the

opinion that there is no service of notice under Section ri(S) of tf.,"

Act and there is violation ofmandatory procedure

under Sections

10(5) and 10(6) of the Act. The Urban Land

Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, came into force in

Andhra pradesh

with effect from 27.03,2008

and

Section 4 of the Repeal Act, if possession

of the land isnot taken,

(Ceiting

and

the State of

by virtue of

then the ULC proceedings

possession

was not taken

stand abated. In the instant case,

in accordance with the mandatory

the ULC

order of

procedure

under Sections 1O(5) and 10(6) of the Act. Thus,

proceedings

No.HyD/24/2OO7

dated Ig.t2.2OO7 and the

the respondent No.2 inProceedings

No.D2/10492/76

and

10494/t976 dated 2t.O7.2OO7,as against the petitioner.

stood

abated

15. In the reply filed by the petitioners it is also their case that

the subject lands in Roshandoula village, Saroornagar

Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, were not originally included in the Master

Plan of Hyderabad, as it existed on L7.OZ.tg76 when the ULC Act

came into force. The lands came to be included in the extended

Master plan

under G.O.Ms.No.391

dated 23.06.1980. Thus, the

computation of the holding of the declaran t/family members with

77.02.1976 as the appointed day, as done in the instant,

)

is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in STATE OF A.p. v.

S.B. KOMARAIAHl.

16. This Court in S,B. KOMARAIAH,S case (1 supra) hetd that

for the lands covered by extended Master plan as per

G.O.lr4s,No.391 dated 23.06.1980, which was published in the

Gazette on 29.09.1980, the appointed day is 29.09.1980 when the

GO came into force. But in the instant case, the declaration of

Smt. ceetha Bai in the yeat !916 was considered by taking

17.02.1976 as appointed date when, admittedly, the lands were not

covered in the then existing Master plan

of Hyderabad. The relevant

portion of S.B. KOMARAIAH's case (1 supra) is as under:

"4O. Therefore, the only conclusron that can be arrived is

that as and when any land, which was not vacant at the

trme of commencement of the Act, becomes vacant on a

subsequent date, the holdings of the persons have to be

decided with reference to the subsequent date on whrch the

land becomes vacant, Any ad.ludication rn respect of such

lands with reference to the date of commencement of the

Act cannot be sustained. Admittedly, in the present case,

the land in question came to be treated as vacant land with

effect from 29,9-1980 on which date the new master plan

was published. It is not in dispute that the holdings oF the

respondents were decided with reference to 17-Z lg76 i.e,,

the date of commencement oF the Act. Therefore, the order

passed by the 2nd respondent under Section g(4)

of the Act

dated 7 4-1990 as well as the order passed by the appellate

authority on 22-7-1997 are set aside.,,

(1002)2.\I.D 153

\

l3

77. It is not in dispute that in the instant case the holding of the

petitioners was computed with reference to 77 '02'1976 and the

same is not permissible in view of the aforesaid decision in

S,B. KOMARAIAH'S case (1 supra). The inclusion of the subject

lands in the Master Plan under G.O.Ms'No'391 with effect from

29.09.1980 is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader'

In the result, the writ petition is allowed The miscellaneous

petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' There shall be no order

as to costs.

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above'

WIINESS THE HON'BLE TTIE-C IET JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH' ON this

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH ONV OT IUUE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA

RAO

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SCTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Director of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land

AJministration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad'

2. The Special Officer and Competent Authority' Urban Land Ceiling'

Hyderabad.

g.

One CC to SRI M.V DURGA PRASAD' Advocate lOPUCl

4.TwocCStoGPFoRASSIGNMENT,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana'

at HYderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies.

BSK

t"

\

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810612026

*.1,

q

ORDER

WP.No.7213 of 2008

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

CC TODAY

It

1