No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***
WRIT PETITION NOS: 8176 of 2008, 12390 of 2012 & 21393 of 2012
WRIT PETITION NO: 8176/2008
Between:
Pydi Varahalamma W/o Late Pydi Krishna Sarma, and
Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh Department Of and
Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. .
2. SANAPALA VINOD KUMAR
3. V SANTHISREE
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
3. C HANUMANTHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 12390/2012
Between:
Const. Attorney & Auth. Sign., M/s. ECE Industries Ltd,
New Delhi
...PETITIONER
AND
Prl. Secy. Dept of Revenue, ULC Hyderabad 4 Others
and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A CHANDRA SHAKER
2
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 21393/2012
Between:
M/s. Bhiragacha Finance Company Private Limited, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A CHANDRA SHAKER
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
Date of Order pronounced : 04-02-2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
may be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
____________________________
JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN
3
* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN
+ WRIT PETITION NOS: 8176 of 2008, 12390 of 2012 & 21393 of 2012
% Dated: 04-02-2025
WRIT PETITION NO: 8176/2008
Between:
# Pydi Varahalamma W/o Late Pydi Krishna Sarma, and
Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
$ The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Department Of
and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
! Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. .
2. SANAPALA VINOD KUMAR
3. V SANTHISREE
^ Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
3. C HANUMANTHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 12390/2012
Between:
# Const. Attorney & Auth. Sign., M/s. ECE Industries Ltd,
New Delhi
...PETITIONER
AND
$ Prl. Secy. Dept of Revenue, ULC Hyderabad 4 Others
and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
! Counsel for the Petitioner:
4
1. A CHANDRA SHAKER
^ Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 21393/2012
Between:
# M/s. Bhiragacha Finance Company Private Limited, ...PETITIONER
AND
$ The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
! Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A CHANDRA SHAKER
^ Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1
2013(4) SCC 280
2
(2014) 12 SCC 523
3
(2012) 4 SCC 718
APHC010593082008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B
WRIT PETITION NOS: 8176 of 2008, 12390 of 2012 & 21393 of 2012
WRIT PETITION NO: 8176/2008
Between:
Pydi Varahalamma W/o Late Pydi Krishna Sarma, and
Others
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Department Of and
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.
.
2.
SANAPALA VINOD KUMAR
3.
V SANTHISREE
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
2.
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
3.
C HANUMANTHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 12390/2012
Between:
Const. Attorney & Auth. Sign., M/s. ECE Industries Ltd,
New Delhi
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NOS: 8176 of 2008, 12390 of 2012 & 21393 of 2012
WRIT PETITION NO: 8176/2008
Pydi Varahalamma W/o Late Pydi Krishna Sarma, and ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Department Of and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
SANAPALA VINOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
C HANUMANTHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 12390/2012
Attorney & Auth. Sign., M/s. ECE Industries Ltd, ...PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3233]
KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION NOS: 8176 of 2008, 12390 of 2012 & 21393 of 2012
...PETITIONER(S)
...RESPONDENT(S)
...PETITIONER
6
AND
Prl. Secy. Dept of Revenue, ULC Hyderabad 4 Others
and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A CHANDRA SHAKER
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 21393/2012
Between:
M/s. Bhiragacha Finance Company Private Limited, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A CHANDRA SHAKER
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following Common Order:
W.P.No.8176 of 2008
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the notification dated 07.07.2007
published dated 12.07.2007 and the consequential orders in proceedings
No.G1/10571/76, dated 05.02.2008 issued by the 2
nd
respondent/Special
Officer and Competent Authority, Hyderabad.
7
3. The 1
st
petitioner is the mother and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are her
major sons.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that Sri Pydi
Appanna, father-in-law of the 1
st
petitioner, Sri Pydi Krishna Sharma, husband
of the 1
st
petitioner and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the absolute owners of
the land in an extent of Ac.3-52 cents in Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village,
Visakhapatnam.
(i) A registered lease deed bearing document No.1138/1964 dated
22.04.1964 was executed in favour of M/s. A.P. Electrical Equipment
Corporation Limited/5
th
respondent, for a period of 99 years. In pursuance of
the same, the 5
th
respondent established a factory comprising three huge
factory sheds admeasuring 2043.00 sq. mts., 2043.00 sq. mts. and 2198.83
sq. mts. with appurtenant land 500 sq. mts. each, two godowns admeasuring
1129.00 sq. mts. and 1130.00 sq. mts. with appurtenant land of 500 sq. mts.
each. A workshop in an extent of 762.54 sq. mts with an appurtenant land of
500 sq. mts. along with power room generator in an extent of 686.73 sq. mts.
was built with an appurtenant land of 500 sq. mts. Thus, the entire extent of
the land of the petitioners was having built up area with roads etc. and there
was no vacant land as such. After the death of the father-in-law and the
husband, the 1
st
petitioner and her sons succeeded to the ownership of the
property.
8
(ii) After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976, it appears that the 5
th
respondent lessee who was in occupation of the
subject land filed a declaration under section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act, 1976 including the property belonging to the petitioners in his
declaration form along with the constructed area and was dealing with the
matter in the capacity of lessee in occupation.
(iii) By a registered letter with acknowledgement due bearing Regd.
No.4335 dated 14.09.1991, a representation was made to the 3
rd
respondent
inter alia giving details of the land owned by the petitioners to the 5
th
respondent and that the land was covered by the structures etc. The said
representation was received by the 3
rd
respondent on 17.09.1991. In the
course of time, the 5
th
respondent Corporation became defunct in January,
2000. Then the petitioners filed O.S.No.516 of 2005, on the file of II Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking eviction of the 5
th
respondent
from the property. The said suit was decreed on 11.04.2007. The 5
th
respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.No.145 of 2007 on the file of the I
Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the said appeal was allowed on
07.09.2007 setting aside the decree of eviction. Then the Second Appeal
No.1212 of 2007 was filed before the Hon’ble High Court questioning the
judgment of the I
st
Appellate Court.
(iv) It appears that the 5
th
respondent Corporation being the lease holder for
a period of 99 years filed a declaration under section 6(1) of the Urban Land
(Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of the properties owned and
9
possessed by it within the Urban Agglomeration of Hyderabad and
Visakhapatnam. In the said declaration, apart from the land owned by the 5
th
respondent in Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam and other places, the lands owned
by the petitioners in Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem, Visakhapatnam were shown as
leased lands with structures in occupation of the 5
th
respondent claiming
exemption under section 4(11) of the Act.
(v) The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,
Hyderabad/the 2
nd
respondent passed final orders dated 03.02.2004 under
section 8(4) of the Act holding that the 5
th
respondent is the surplus holder to
an extent of 39559.83 sq. mts. But in the said order, the land in Sy.No.59/3
belonging to the petitioners was shown as exempted under section 4(11) of
the Act. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
S.No. Name of the
structure
Sy.No. Name of
the Village
Extent in
Sq.Mts.
Appt.
Land
Addl.
Appt.
Land
Area
protected
u/s.4(11)
Vacant
land
1. Factory Shed 59/3 Marripalem 2043.00 500.00 -- 2543.00
2. Factory Shed 59/3 Marripalem 2043.00 500.00 -- 2543.00
3. Factory Shed 59/3 Marripalem 2198.83 500.00 -- 2698.83
4. Godown
Room
59/3 Marripalem 1129.00 500.00 -- 1629.00
5. Godown
Room
59/3 Marripalem 1130.00 500.00 -- 1630.00
6. Work Shop 59/3 Marripalem 762.54 500.00 -- 1262.54
7. Power Room
/Generator
59/3 Marripalem 686.73 500.00 -- 1186.73
(vi) Then the Appellate authority set aside the order of the 2
nd
respondent,
dated 03.02.2004 in the appeal filed by the 5
th
respondent and remanded the
case to the 2
nd
respondent for reconsideration vide order dated 28.07.2005.
The Appellate authority observed that the surplus land held by the 5
th
10
respondent would be 48527.13 sq. mts. and not 39559.83 sq. mts. as
determined by the 2
nd
respondent. But the Appellate authority did not dispute
the exemption granted in respect of the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.59/3
protected under section 4(11) of the Act. Thus, the exemption under section
4(11) of the Act in respect of the petitioner’s land attained finality. However,
the 2
nd
respondent revised its earlier order as directed by the Appellate
authority and passed a final order under section 8(4) of the Act dated
20.03.2007. Even in the revised order, the lands of the petitioner in
Sy.No.59/3 under lease of the 5
th
respondent were shown as lands covered
under structures and protected under section 4(11) of the Act. Thus, the land
of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.52 cents with structures, roads etc. was
exempted under section 4(11) of the Act by the 2
nd
respondent. Thus, the
said order attained finality.
(vii) The 2
nd
respondent issued a notice dated 07.07.2007 under section
10(1) of the Act proposing to take over the entire extent of the land of the
petitioners as surplus and called for objections. The section 10(1) notification
was published in the Gazette on 12.07.2007. The petitioners had no
knowledge on the notice about the pendency of the proceedings before the
2
nd
respondent/the Appellate authority. The petitioners first time came to know
about the section 10(1) notification issued by the 2
nd
respondent in the month
of September, 2007. Then the petitioners made a representation to the
Special Officer & Competent Authority i.e., the 3
rd
respondent on 28.09.2007.
Similar representation was also made to the 2
nd
respondent by registered post
11
vide Regd. No.3155 dated 29.09.2007. The 3
rd
respondent addressed the 2
nd
respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.409/81/B2 dated 31.10.2007 holding
that in view of the earlier proceedings, Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village,
Visakhapatnam is exempted under section 4(11) of the Act on account of the
existence of structures and as there is no vacant land. The relevant para is
extracted hereunder:
"In this context, I submit that in the proceedings 1
st
cited the Special Officer &
Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad has determined an extent
of 12656.22 sq. mts under "C" category in Visakhapatnam U.A., against the
holding of APEEC Ltd., Visakhapatnam after providing protection as
contemplated U/S.4 (11) of the Act in respect of structures, Roads, green belt
etc., which is supposed to be situated in different Survey numbers of
Kapparada, Marripalem Villages and Waltair ward. But where as in the
reference 2
nd
cited it was notified that the entire extent-of-12656 sq. mts. of
surplus land is situated in S.No. 59/3 of Marripalem alone in spite of the fact
that, that much of vacant extent, after providing protection U/S. 4 (11) of the Act,
is not available in S.No 59/3 of Marripalem. This mistake might have been crept
in by over sight.
Hence, I request that necessary erratum. may kindly be issued to the
Notification issued U/S. 10 (1) of the Act and the same may kindly be
communicated to this office for taking necessary further action in the matter."
W.P.No.12390 of 2012
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
6. This writ petition is filed by M/s. ECE Industries Ltd. questioning the
action of the respondents in conducting the alleged panchanama dated
12.03.2008 and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with
12
the possession of the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.59/3 in an extent of Ac.3-52
cents of Marripalem Village, Visakhapatnam District. But, subsequently,
I.A.No.2 of 2012 was filed in the said writ petition seeking amendment of the
prayer with respect to the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 cents instead of Ac.3-
52 cents which was duly allowed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
company in the business of manufacturing electrical equipment. For the
purpose of carrying on its manufacturing activities, had taken the land
admeasuring Ac.3-52 cents in Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village,
Visakhapatnam District by way of lease for a period of 99 years from Pydi
Appanna and his family members vide registered document No.1138 of 1964,
dated 22.04.1964. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner company
established a factory comprising three huge factory sheds admeasuring
2043.00, 2043.00 and 2198.83 sq. mts. with appurtenant land 500 sq. mts.
each, two godowns admeasuring 1129.00 and 1130.00 sq. mts. with
appurtenant land of 500 sq. mts. each. A workshop in an extent of 762.54 sq.
mts with an appurtenant land of 500 sq. mts. along with power room generator
in an extent of 686.73 sq. mts. was built with an appurtenant land of 500 sq.
mts. Thus, the entire extent of the land of the petitioners was having built up
area with roads etc. and there was no vacant land as such.
(i) After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976, the petitioner company filed a declaration under section 6(1) of the Act,
of the properties owned and possessed by it in the urban agglomeration of
13
Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam including the property in Sy.No.59/3 of
Marripalem village taken on lease as stated above. The Special Officer and
Competent Authority, ULC, Nampally, Hyderabad/ the 2
nd
respondent issued
proceedings under section 8(1) of the Act calling objections in respect of the
surplus land held by the petitioner company, dated 07.04.1992. The petitioner
company filed its objections dated 22.05.1992.
(ii) The 2
nd
respondent issued the proceedings under section 8(4) of the
Act declaring the petitioner company as surplus land holder to an extent of
46,538.43 sq. mts. in Fatehnagar of Hyderabad, Urban Agglomeration and to
an extent of 39,559.83 sq. mts. of Marripalem Village, Visakhapatnam, Urban
Agglomeration, dated 03.04.2004. In the said order, the land in Sy.No.59/3
belonging to the petitioner was shown as exempted under section 4(11) of the
Act. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
S.No. Name of the
structure
Sy.No. Name of
the Village
Extent in
Sq.Mts.
Appt.
Land
Addl.
Appt.
Land
Area
protected
u/s.4(11)
Vacant
land
1. Factory Shed 59/3 Marripalem 2043.00 500.00 -- 2543.00
2. Factory Shed 59/3 Marripalem 2043.00 500.00 -- 2543.00
3. Factory Shed 59/3 Marripalem 2198.83 500.00 -- 2698.83
4. Godown
Room
59/3 Marripalem 1129.00 500.00 -- 1629.00
5. Godown
Room
59/3 Marripalem 1130.00 500.00 -- 1630.00
6. Work Shop 59/3 Marripalem 762.54 500.00 -- 1262.54
7. Power Room
/Generator
59/3 Marripalem 686.73 500.00 -- 1186.73
(iii) Then the petitioner company instituted an appeal under section 33 of
the ULC Act against the orders issued by the 2
nd
respondent dated
03.04.2004. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. and the
14
Appellate Authority admitted the appeal and granted the status quo subject to
the petitioner company not creating any change or altering the nature of the
subject land, dated 14.02.2005. Consequently, the Appellate authority set
aside the order of the 2
nd
respondent, dated 03.02.2004 in the appeal filed by
the petitioner company and remanded the case to the 2
nd
respondent for
reconsideration vide order dated 28.07.2005. The Appellate authority
observed that the surplus land held by the petitioner company would be
48527.13 sq. mts. and not 39559.83 sq. mts. as determined by the 2
nd
respondent. But the Appellate authority did not dispute the exemption granted
in respect of the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.59/3 protected under section 4(11)
of the Act. Thus, the exemption under section 4(11) of the Act in respect of
the petitioner’s land attained finality. However, the 2
nd
respondent revised its
earlier order as directed by the Appellate authority and passed a final order
under section 8(4) of the Act dated 20.03.2007. Even in the revised order, the
lands of the petitioner in Sy.No.59/3 under lease of the petitioner company
were shown as lands covered under structures and protected under section
4(11) of the Act. Thus, the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.52 cents
with structures, roads etc. was exempted under section 4(11) of the Act by the
2
nd
respondent. Thus, the said order attained finality.
(iv) The owners of the land covered by Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village
under lease to the petitioner company filed W.P.No.8176 of 2008 against the
proposed action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 questioning the proceedings of
the 2
nd
respondent dated 05.02.2008 in which it was stated that the notice
15
under section 10(5) of the Act, dated 05.01.2008 was issued to M/s.
A.P.E.E.C., Fatehnagar, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District (petitioner company)
asking them to deliver the possession of surplus land to an extent of
46,538.43 sq. mts in Sy.No.74/P, 75/P, 76/P, Fatehnagar, Balanagar Mandal
and 8437.48 sq. mts. (B-Category) equivalent to 12,656.22 sq. mts. (C-
Category), Marripalem Village, Visakhapatnam District, within a period of 30
days. That the said 30 days time given in notice under section 10(5), dated
05.01.2008 expired on 01.10.2008. But, they failed to deliver possession
before the expiry date and hence Sri S.A.Khader, Enquiry Officer was
authorized to take over the possession of the land in question under section
10(6) of the Act to handover the same to the Mandal Reveneue Officer
concerned and to report compliance within one week.
(v) From a perusal of the proceedings dated 05.02.2008, it is to be seen
that the copies of the proceedings were only marked to Mr. S.A.Khader,
Enquiry Officer, ULC Office, Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the Tahsildar
and the Deputy Collector, Balanagar Mandal, and the Deputy Inspector of
Survey to accompany the Enquiry Officer. Copies were not marked either to
the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, or the concerned Deputy Collector or
Tahsildar of Marripalem Village.
(vi) The ULC Act i.e., Act, 33 of 1976 stood repealed by the Urban Land
(Ceiling Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The State of A.P. adopted the repeal
Act. As physical possession had not been taken before the commencement
16
of repeal Act, the proceedings dated 05.02.2008 questioned in W.P.No.8176
of 2008 became non est.
(vii) The land holders instituted O.S.No.516 of 2005, on the file of II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking eviction of the
petitioner company from the said property. The suit was decreed on
11.04.2007. The petitioner company’s appeal in A.S.No.145 of 2007 on the file
of the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam was allowed on 07.09.2007.
The land owners filed S.A.No.1212 of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court.
Later, the petitioner company and the land owners entered into a compromise
pursuant thereto the land owners executed a sale deed dated 28.06.2011
under a registered document No.1753 of 2011 in respect of Ac.3-52 cents in
Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village.
(viii) The 5
th
respondent/the Tahsildar and the Executive Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam filed a complaint against Sri J.P. Balasarya, an employee of
the petitioner company alleging that the subject land was in the possession of
the Government and he had trespassed into the land. The same was
registered as Crime No.77 of 2012 of Kancherapalem P.S., Visakhapatnam
for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the I.P.C. and
Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Land Grabbing Act. This Hon’ble Court in
Crl.M.P.No.2204 of 2012 in Crl.P.No.27035 of 2012 granted interim stay,
dated 24.04.2012. Lands owned by the petitioner in Hyderabad have no
bearing as far as the present writ petition is concerned but as the proceedings
are common, the same are referred. When the ULC authorities sought to take
17
possession of the land in Fatehnagar Village, petitioner filed W.P.No.11293 of
2009 and W.P.No.23477 of 2010 and obtained interim stay in the year 2010.
The said writ petition was allowed on 03.01.2022. But the stay order was set
aside in W.A.Nos.665 and 670 of 2022, dated 14.02.2023 by the Hon’ble High
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in S.L.P.Nos.3794 and 3795 of 2023 directed to maintain the status quo.
W.P.No.21393 of 2012
8. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
9. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in
conducting the alleged panchanama dated 12.03.2008 as arbitrary, violative of
the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondent not to
interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.59/3 to an extent
of Ac.2.00 cents of Marripalem Village, Visakhapatnam District.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is a company in the business of financial services in and around the State of
West Bengal. One Smt. Pydi Varahalamma/the petitioner in W.P.No.8176 of
2008 offered to sell the land in an extent of Ac.3-00 cents to the petitioner out
of Ac.3-52 cents in Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village, Visakhapatnam District
covered by Patta No.232 part. Then the petitioner purchased the land in an
extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village vide document
No.1788 of 2011. The said land is adjacent to the land in an extent of Ac.1.00
18
cents purchased by M/s. ECE Industries Ltd./the petitioner in W.P.No.12390
of 2012. In the year 2008, when the 2
nd
respondent vide proceedings
No.G1/10571/76, dated 05.02.2008 sought to take possession of the land in
Marripalem Village, Pydi Varahalamma and family members filed
W.P.No.8176 of 2008 questioning the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4
contending inter alia that in terms of the proceedings of the 2
nd
respondent
dated 20.03.2007, the land in Sy.No.59/3 was protected under Section 4(11)
of the Act and they had no notices under Section 10(1), 10(3) were served on
the petitioners therein and more importantly the 3
rd
respondent by letter in
Rc.No.409/81/B2, dated 31.10.2007 addressed to the 2
nd
respondent stated
that there was no vacant land in Sy.No.59/3 and mistake might have been
crept in by oversight and requested for necessary erratum to the notice issued
under Section 10(1) of the Act earlier.
(i) The erstwhile High Court in W.P.M.P.No.10798 of 2008 in W.P.No.8176
of 2008 granted stay of all further proceedings dated 16.04.2008. Hence, the
land owners continued in possession. The Urban Land Ceiling Act i.e., Act 33
of 1976 was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 and the same was adopted by the erstwhile State of A.P. with effect from
27.03.2008. As the physical possession had not been taken before the
commencement of the Repeal Act, the proceedings dated 05.02.2008
questioned in the W.P.No.8176 of 2008 became non est. The land owners as
stated above executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of
Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village. The 5
th
respondent/the
19
Tahsildar and the Executive Magistrate of the Visakhapatnam filed a
complaint against Sri J.P.Balasarya, an employee of the petitioner company
alleging that the subject land was in the possession of the Government and he
had trespassed into the land. Consequently, a crime was registered in
F.I.R.No.77 of 2012 of Kancharapalem P.S., Visakhapatnam for the offences
punishable under Sections 447, 427 of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Land
Grabbing Act. The erstwhile High Court of A.P. in Crl.M.P.No.2204 of 2012 in
Crl.P.No.27035 of 2012 granted interim stay dated 24.04.2012.
11. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader
representing the office of the Additional Advocate General relying upon the
counter affidavits of the respondents in the three writ petitions submit that all
the three writ petitions are emanated from the provisions of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The writ petition Nos.12390 and 21393 of
2012 were filed challenging the panchanama and the writ petition No.8176 of
2008 was filed claiming that the subject property is protected under Section
4(11) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and there is no surplus
land. The declarant company has got property in Visakhapatnam and
Hyderabad. They filed three applications regarding the surplus land for three
different survey numbers, three different panchanamas were conducted and
three different petitions were filed before the erstwhile Hon’ble High Court and
after bifurcation of the State and the High Courts, two of them came to the
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and one to the Hon’ble High Court of
Telangana. The proceedings under ULC Act were conducted in the year 2008
20
and the possession was taken. The respondents strictly followed the rules as
on that day.
12. The company filed statements under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act with respect to the properties situated at
Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and Visakhapatnam Urban Agglomeration
before the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, A.P.,
Hyderabad. Ultimately, it was concluded that the surplus land to an extent of
12,656.22 Sq. Mtrs. in Marripalem Village of Visakhapatnam was covered vide
orders under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act dated 05.02.2008. Though the
order under Section 10(6) of the Act attains finality the company filed the writ
petition No.12390 of 2012 challenging the panchanama dated 12.03.2008. At
the time of filing of the said writ petition, the records thereof were with the
Special Officer at Hyderabad. On account of reorganization of the State of
Andhra Pradesh, only the cases pending before the Urban Agglomeration has
been transferred to the respective competent authorities but the original
record relating to the subject matter of the writ petition is in the office of the
then Special Officer, Hyderabad. The petitioners in the writ petition No.8176
of 2008 cancelled the lease deed with a malafide intention and compromised
with the declarant and other parties by selling the subject land in an extent of
Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village to the declarant company
and an extent of Ac.1-00 cents to the writ petitioner in W.P.No.21393 of 2012
though the status quo orders are in force vide W.P.M.P.No.10798 of 2008 in
W.P.No.8176 of 2008 dated 16.04.2008. Hence the execution of the sale
21
deed in favour of the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.12390 and 21393 of 2012 is
null and void.
13. Upon consideration of the above said rival submissions made, it is
necessary to look into the relevant legal provisions under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Repeal Act, 1999 as under:
The statutory framework of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976
i.e., Act 33 of 1976:
1. In view of the growth of population and increase in urbanization, the
Parliament felt the need of orderly development of urban areas and to take
necessary measures for exercising the social control of urban land which was
considered to be a scarce resource and to also bring out an equitable
distribution of urban land, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was
enacted. To ensure the said Act was uniformly applied in all the states and
territories of India, various states were addressed by the Govt. of India for
their consent for adopting the said legislation under Article 252(1) of the
Constitution of India. Thus, the Act came into force in the undivided state of
Andhra Pradesh with effect from 17.02.1976.
2. The object of the Act was to provide for imposition of ceiling on vacant land
in urban agglomeration, for acquisition of such land in excess of ceiling land,
to regulate the construction of buildings on such lands and the matters
connected there with, with a view to prevent the concentration of Urban Land
in the hands of few persons and speculation and profiting therein and with a
22
view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in Urban agglomeration
to subserve the common good.
3. Chapter III of the Act imposed ceiling on possession of vacant land. An
obligation on persons holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit is set out in
section 6 of the Act requiring filing of statement before the competent authority
declaring the vacant land etc. possessed. The competent authority under
section 8 is required to prepare a draft statement in respect of the vacant land
held in excess of ceiling limit. Then the draft statement is to be served on the
concerned person together with the notice under section 8(3) calling for
objections if any within 30 days. Then the competent authority is required to
pass a final order under section 8(4) after considering the objections filed.
4. The final statement has to be issued under section 9 of the Act. Section
10(1) states that after service of Statement the competent authority has to
issue a notification giving particulars of the land held by such person in excess
of ceiling limit. For the information of General Public a Notification has to be
published in the official gazette stating that such vacant land is to be acquired
and that the claim of all the persons interested in such vacant land be
made by them giving particulars of the nature of their interest in such
lands. Under section 10(2) the competent authority after considering the
claims of persons interested in vacant land has to determine the nature and
extent of such claims and pass necessary orders thereon. Section 10(3)
states that after the publication of the notification under 10(1), the competent
authority has to declare that the excess land mentioned in the notification
23
published under section 10(1) shall, with effect from such date as may be
prescribed in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the
state government. Thereafter, on publication of declaration to that effect such
land shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the state Govt.,
free from all encumbrances, with effect from the date so specified.
5. Since the instant case is primarily concerned with the scope of section 10 of
the Act, it can be beneficially extracted hereunder:
10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.-
(1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section
9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a
notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such
person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that-
(i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State
Government; and
(ii) the claims of all persons interested in such vacant land may be
made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the
nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the
information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State
concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed.
(2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant
land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification
published under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall
determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such örders
as it deems fit.
(3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-
section (1), the competent authority may, by notification published in
the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess
24
vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section
(1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the
declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State
Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land
shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the State
Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so
specified.
(4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the
notification under sub- section (1) and ending with the date specified in
the declaration made under sub-section (3)—
(i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof)
specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in
contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void;
and
(ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess
vacant land.
(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under
sub- section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing,
örder any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or
deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person
duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty
days of the service of the notice.
(6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under
sub-section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the
vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government
or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this
behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.
Explanation. In this section, in sub-section (1) of section 11.and in
sections 14 and 23, "State Government", in relation to-
25
(a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government, means the
Central Government;
(b) any vacant land owned by any State Government and situated in a
Union territory or within the local limits of cantonment declared as such
under section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, (2 of 1924.) means that
State Government."
THE REPEAL ACT, AND THE SAVINGS CLAUSE
1. Parliament passed the Repeal Act in the year 1999
Statement of Object and Reasons:
1. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was passed when
Proclamation of emergency was in operation with a laudable objective in mind.
The said Act was passed pursuant to the resolution passed by the State
Legislature under clause (1) of Article 252. Unfortunately public opinion is
nearly unanimous that the Act has failed to achieve what was expected of it. It
has on the contrary pushed up land prices to unconscionable levels,
practically brought the housing industry to a stop and provided copious
opportunities for corruption. There is wide spread clamour for removing this
most potent clog on housing.
2. Parliament has no power to repeal or amend the Act unless resolutions are
passed by two or more state legislatures as required under clause (2) of
Article 252.
3. The Legislature of Haryana and Punjab have passed resolutions
empowering Parliament to repel the act in those States. The Act, in the first
26
instance will be repealed in those States and in the Union Territories and
subsequently if any State Legislature adopts this Act by resolution, then from
the date of its adoption the Act will stand repealed in that State.
4. The proposed repeal, along with some other incentives and simplification of
administrative procedures is expected to revive the stagnant housing industry
and provide affordable living accommodation for those who are in a state of
underserved want and are entitled to public assistance. The repeal will not
however, affect the land on which building activity has already commenced.
For that limited purpose exemption granted under Section 20 of the Act will
continue to be operative. Amounts paid out by the State Government will
become refundable.
5. The bill seeks to achieve the above purpose.
Act, 33 of 1976 was repealed by section 2 of Repeal Act, 1999 AP and
the Repeal Act was adopted by the undivided State of A.P., on
27.03.2008.
Section 3 of the Repeal Act contains the saving Act, which is as follows:
6. Saving.-
(1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect-
(a) The vesting of any vacant land under sub-section 10, possession of which
has been taken over by the state government or any person duly authorized
by the state government in this behalf or by the competent authority;
(b) The validity of any order granting exemption under sub section (1) of
section 20 or any action taken there under, notwithstanding any judgment of
any court to the contrary;
27
(c) Any payment made to the state government as a condition for granting
exemption under sub-section (1) of section 20.
(2) Where-
(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the state government under sub
section (3) of section 10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not
been taken over by the state government or any person duly authorized by the
state government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and
(b) any amount has been paid by the state government with respect to such
land, then such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has
been refunded to the state government."
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh V. Hariram
1
had occasion to consider the ambit and purport of
sections 10(3),(5) and (6) Act, 1976 with reference to section 3 of the Repeal
Act. The Hon'ble Apex court held as follows after detailed consideration of the
same.
24. The expression "deemed to have been acquired" used as a deeming
fiction under sub-section (3) of Section 10 can only mean acquisition of
title or acquisition of interests because till that time the land may be either
in the ownership of the person who held that vacant land or to possess
such land as owner or as a tenant or as mortgagee and so on as defined
under Section 2(1) of the Act. The word "vested" has not been defined in
the Act, so also the word "absolutely". What is vested absolutely is only
the land which is deemed to have acquired and nothing more..
29. What is deemed "vesting absolutely" is that "what is deemed to have
acquired". In our view, there must be express words of utmost clarity to
persuade a court to hold that the legislature intended to divest
possession also, since the owners or holders of the vacant land is pitted
against a statutory hypothesis. Possession, there is an adage "nine
1
2013(4) SCC 280
28
points of law" In Beedall v. Maitland (1881) 17 Ch. D. p.183 Sir Edward
Fry, while speaking of a Statute which makes a forcible entry an
indictable offence, stated as follows:
"this statute creates one of the great differences which exist in our law
between the being in possession and the being out of possession of land,
and which gave rise to the old saying that possession is nine points of
the law. The effect of the statute is this, that when a man is in
possession, he may use force to keep out a trespasser; but if a
trespasser has gained possession, the rightful owner cannot use force to
put him out, but must appeal to the law for assistance."
30. Vacant land, it may be noted, is not actually acquired but deemed to
have been acquired, in that deeming things to be what they are not.
Acquisition, therefore, does not take possession unless there is an
indication to the contrary. It is trite law that in construing a deeming
provision, it is necessary to bear in mind the legislative purpose. The
purpose of the Act is to impose ceiling on vacant land, for the acquisition
of land in excess of the ceiling limit thereby to regulate construction on
such lands, to prevent concentration of urban lands in hands of few
persons, so as to bring about equitable distribution. For achieving that
object, various procedures have to be followed for acquisition and
vesting. When we look at those words in the above setting and the
provisions to follow such as sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10, the
words 'acquired' and 'vested' have different meaning and content. Under
Section 10(3), what is vested is de jure possession not de facto, for more
reasons than one because we are testing the expression on a statutory
hypothesis and such an hypothesis can be carried only to the extent
necessary to achieve the legislative intent.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:
31. The 'vesting' in sub-section (3) of Section 10, in our view, means
vesting of title absolutely and not possession though nothing stands in
the way of a person voluntarily surrendering ог delivering possession.
The court in Maharaj Singh v. State of UP and Others (1977) 1 SCC 155,
29
while interpreting Section 117(1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reform Act, 1950 held that 'vesting' is a word of slippery import and has
many meaning and the context controls the text and the purpose and
scheme project the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning. The
court in Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (dead) by Lrs. (2000) 8 SCC 99 held
as follows:
"We do find some contentious substance in the contextual facts, since
vesting shall have to be a "vesting" certain. "To vest, generally means to
give a property in." (Per Brett, L.J. Coverdale v. Charlton. Stroud's
Judicial Dictionary, 5th edn. Vol. VI.) Vesting in favour of the unborn
person and in the contextual facts on the basis of a subsequent adoption
after about 50 years without any authorization cannot however but be
termed to be a contingent event. To "vest". cannot be termed to be an
executor devise. Be it noted however, that "vested" does not necessarily
and always mean "vest in possession" but includes "vest in interest" as
well."
32. We are of the view that so far as the present case is concerned, the
word "vesting" takes in every interest in the property including de jure
possession and, not de facto but it is always open to a person to
voluntarily surrender and deliver possession, under Section 10(3) of the
Act.
33. Before we examine sub-section (5) and sub-section (6) of Section 10,
let us examine the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act,
which says that during the period commencing on the date of publication
under sub-section (1), ending with the day specified in the declaration
made under sub-section (3), no person shall transfer by way of sale,
mortgage, gift or otherwise, any excess vacant land, specified in the
notification and any such transfer made in contravention of the Act shall
be deemed to be null and void. Further, it also says that no person shall
alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land.
Therefore, from the date of publication of the notification under sub-
section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made in
30
sub-section (3), there is no question of disturbing the possession of a
person, the possession, therefore, continues to be with the holder of the
land.
PEACEFUL DISPOSSESSION
34. Sub-section (5) of Section 10, for the first time, speaks of
"possession" which says where any land is vested in the State
Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10, the competent authority
may, by notice in writing, order any person, who may be in possession of
it to surrender or transfer possession to the State Government or to any
other person, duly authorized by the State Government.
35. If de facto possession has already passed on to the State
Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) to
Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression "where any land
is vested" under sub-section (5) to Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of
possession under sub-section (3) to Section 10 can be voluntary so that
the person may get the compensation as provided under Section 11 of
the Act early. Once there is no voluntary surrender or delivery of
possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in
writing under sub-section (5) to Section 10 to surrender or deliver
possession. Subsection (5) of Section 10 visualizes a situation of
surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6)
of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession.
FORCEFUL DISPOSSESSION
36. The Act provides for forceful dispossession but only when a person
refuses or fails to comply with an order under sub-section (5) of Section
10. Sub-section (6) to Section 10 again speaks of "possession" which
says, if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order made under
sub section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the
vacant land to be given to the State Government and for that purpose,
force as may be necessary can be used. Sub-section (6), therefore,
contemplates a situation of a person refusing or fails to comply with the
31
order under sub-section (5), in the event of which the competent authority
may take possession by use of force. Forcible dispossession of the land,
therefore, is being resorted only in a situation which falls under sub-
section (6) and not under sub-section (5) to Section 10. Sub-sections (5)
and (6), therefore, take care of both the situations, i.e. taking possession
by giving notice that is "peaceful dispossession" and on failure to
surrender or give delivery of possession under Section 10(5), then
"forceful dispossession" under sub-section (6) of Section 10.
37. Requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of
Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word 'may' has been used therein,
the word 'may' in both the sub-sections has to be understood as "shall"
because a court charged with the task of enforcing the statute needs to
decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from
failure to implement the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under
sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 10 is that it might result the
land holder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word 'may'
has to be read as 'shall'.
39. Above-mentioned directives make it clear that sub-section (3) takes
in only de jure possession and not de facto possession, therefore, if the
land owner is not surrendering possession voluntarily under sub-section
(3) of Section 10, or surrendering or delivering possession after notice,
under Section 10(5) or dispossession by use of force, it cannot be said
that the State Government has taken possession of the vacant land.
40. The scope of Act 33 of 1976 came up for consideration before this
Court on few occasions; reference may be made to certain judgments,
even though there has been no elaborate discussion of the provision of
the Act and its impact on the Repeal Act. Reference may be made to Pt.
Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. and
Others (2000) 6 SCC 325, Ghasitey Lal Sahu and Another v. Competent
Authority, Under the Urban (Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976), U.P. and
Another (2004) 13 SCC 452, Mukarram Ali Khan v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others (2007) 11 SCC 90 and Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v.
32
Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Others (2012) 4 SCC
718.
EFFECT OF THE REPEAL ACT
41. Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of the Repeal Act 15 of
1999 on sub-section (3) to Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act 1999
has expressly repealed the Act 33 of 1976. The Object and Reasons of
the Repeal Act has already been referred to in the earlier part of this
Judgment. Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The
question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a
statute before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction
of the statute and the facts of the particular case.
42. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10
would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto
possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary
surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. State has to establish that
there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and
delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or
forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to
establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the
benefit of 4 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could
not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in
holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of 4 of the
Repeal Act.
15. The above Judgment was followed in the case of Gajanan Kamlya
Patil v. Addl. Collector and Comp. Auth. And Ors.
2
and observed as
follows:
13. We have, therefore, clearly indicated that it was always open to the
authorities to take forcible possession and, in fact, in the notice issued
under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, it was stated that if the possession
2
(2014) 12 SCC 523
33
had not been surrendered, possession would be taken by application of
necessary force. For taking forcible possession, certain procedures had
to be followed. Respondents have no case that such procedures were
followed and forcible possession was taken. Further, there is nothing to
show that the Respondents had taken peaceful possession, nor there is
anything to show that the Appellants had given voluntary possession.
Facts would clearly indicate that only de jure possession had been taken
by the Respondents and not de facto possession before coming into
force of the Repeal Act. Since there is nothing to show that de facto
possession had been taken from the Appellants prior to the execution of
the possession receipt in favour of MRDA, it cannot hold on to the lands
in question, which are legally owned and possessed by the Appellants.
Consequently, we are inclined to allow this appeal and quash the notice
dated 17.2.2005 and subsequent action taken therein in view of the
repeal of the ULC Act. The above reasoning would apply in respect of
other appeals as well and all proceedings initiated against the Appellants,
therefore, would stand quashed.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar
v. Deputy Collector and competent authority and others
3
observed as
follows:
9. It is clear from the above provisions that where the possession of the
vacant land has not been taken over by the State Government by any
person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the
Competent Authority, the proceedings under the Act would not survive.
Mere vesting of the vacant land with the State Government by operation
of law without actual possession is not sufficient for operation of Section
3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act.
17. Coming to the facts of this case, upon re-looking the proceedings of the
authorities concerned as referred supra, there was a Gazette notification
3
(2012) 4 SCC 718
34
dated 12.07.2007 of the notice issued by the 2
nd
respondent under section
10(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 mentioning the
particulars of the land as under:
State District Taluk Name of the owner
or Regd. holder or
other person
interested with land
Description
of the land
Extent in Sq.
Mts.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
A.P. Visakhapatnam Marripalem
Village
A.P.E.E.C., Ltd., Vacant land
in
Sy.No.59/3
8437.48 Sq.
Mtrs.,
(B-Category)
Equivalent to
12,656.22
Sq. Mtrs.,
(C-Category)
Hyderabad,
07-07-2007.
P.BHANU MURTHY,
Special Officer & Competent Authority,
Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad.
And there was an order of the 2
nd
respondent vide proceedings
No.G1/10571/76, dated 05.02.2008 in the matter of taking over possession of
surplus land pursuant to the notice under section 10(5) of the Act dated
05.01.2008 asking the 5
th
respondent in W.P.No.8176 of 2008 to deliver the
possession of the following surplus land within 30 days from the date of
service of notice under section 10(5) of the Act.
S.No. Description of the
property
Location Extent in Sq. Mtrs.
1. Sy.No.74/P, 75/P,
76/P
Sy.No.59/3
Fatehnagar Vg.,
Balanagar Mandal,
Ranga Reddy Distrct.
Marripalem Vg.,
Visakhapatnam Dist.
46538.43 Sq. Mtrs.
8437.48 Sq. Mtrs.
(B-Category)
Equivalent to 12656.22
Sq. Mtrs. (C-Category)
18. Since they failed to deliver the possession before the expiry date, the
concerned Enquiry Officer was authorized to take over the possession of land
35
in question under section 10(6) of the Act and hand over the same to the
Mandal Revenue Officer concerned by reporting compliance within one week
positively. We are only concerned with the subject matter of the land in
Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village, Visakhapatnam District. These two
impugned proceedings were preceded by the earlier proceedings of the 2
nd
respondent vide proceedings No.G1/10571/76, dated 03.04.2004, passing a
final order under section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act,
1976, the order of the Commissioner, Appeals in Appeal No.HYD/11/2005,
dated 28.07.2005 under section 33 of the U.L.(C&R) Act, 1976 against the
orders of the 2
nd
respondent under section 8(4) of the Act, the order of the 2
nd
respondent dated 20.03.2007 issued by way of revised orders under section
8(4) of the Act and the letter of the 3
rd
respondent addressed to the 2
nd
respondent dated 31.10.2007 which are already referred supra.
19. Even according to the stand of the 2
nd
respondent, the contentions of
the petitioners were denied specifically and it was clearly mentioned that only
after deleting the lands under section 4(11) of the Act and the lands covered
by roads/Green belt, the revised final order was issued and the statutory
orders were issued under sections 10(1), 10(3), 10(5) & 10(6) of the U.L. (C&
R) Act, 1976. It is borne out of the record that the case was processed further
and the possession of the surplus land covering an extent of 12,656.22 Sq.
Mtrs. in Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem Village, Visakhapatnam District was taken
over vide panchanama dated 12.03.2008 in terms of the impugned order
under section 10(6) of the Act, for which there was no legal hurdle. The said
36
panchanama dated 12.03.2008 was reduced into writing in the presence of
the witnesses who signed the said document. According to it the respondent
officers concerned took over the possession of the subject land duly on
12.03.2008 itself. The petitioners miserably failed to establish that there was
no vesting of the subject property in the State Government and there was no
forceful dispossession from the subject property there on.
20. In W.P.No.21580 of 2008 and Batch, dated 28.03.2017, between
N.Linga Rao and others v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and
others
4
, the erstwhile High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and
the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, at para No.27 of the said order
held that “From the above analysis and also on the facts pleaded by both
sides, it becomes crystal clear that there was no demarcation and division of
the lands of the petitioners, which admittedly are joint family properties, and
there is no material to show that the possession of the surplus land was taken
before Repeal Act came into force in the State i.e., on 27.03.2008, and
therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the
ULC Act lapsed in view of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. In the result, the
impugned proceedings initiated by the 2
nd
respondent are quashed and the
writ petition No.21580 of 2008 is allowed”.
21. It was a case where there was no demarcation and division of lands and
no material to show that the surplus land was taken before the Repeal Act
came into force. Hence the said decision has no application to the facts and
4
MANU/AP/0219/2017
37
circumstances of these cases on hand. Upon perusal of the record and
consideration of the facts and circumstances applying the above said
provisions of law and the decisions, it is well established that the respondent
authorities concerned followed the due procedure and took over possession of
the subject land under a valid panchanama dated 12.03.2008 and as such this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned action of the respondents.
22. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs. Interim orders if any deemed to have been vacated.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
Date : 04.02.2025
Note : LR copy to be marked
B/o
PND
Legal Notes
Add a Note....