L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners challenge the proceedings initiated under Section 10 (5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (for short the Act ) in respect of two plots each of 576 sq. yards in Sy. Nos. 495 and 499 of Khapra village, Vallabhnagar mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

( 2 ) THE lands in those survey numbers were initially held by one Smt. Erram laxmamma. The total extent of the lands was about 15 acres. She transferred the said lands in favour of one. V. Narayandas through sale deed dated 4-4-1964. When the lands were held by Narayandas and his family members, the Act came to be extended to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Since the lands were within the Hyderabad urban Agglomeration, Narayandas and his three brothers filed declarations under section 6 of the Act before the 2nd respondent. On a consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent passed individual orders dated 12-11-1982 under Section 8 (4) of the act, taking the view that each of the said declarants holds an extent of 3035 sq. mts. of land in excess of ceiling limit.

( 3 ) NARAYANDAS transferred an extent of 1152 sq. yards of land in favour of kanaka durga and another and after changing some hands; the same extent of 1152 sq. yards came to be transferred to the petitioner on 6-3-1993 in two separate plots of 576 sq. yards each.

( 4 ) IN the meanwhile, notification under section 10 (1) of the Act was published on 15-6-1983 in respect of the lands held in excess of the ceiling limits by Narayandas. After a lapse of 15 years, a notification under section 10 (3) of the Act was issued on 9-3-1998, which resulted in vesting of the land in the Government. The 2nd respondent issued notice under Sec. 10 (5) of the Act on 8-7-1998 in respect of lands held by them. Petitioners challenge the same on several grounds.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the government issued G. O. Ms. No. 733 dated 30-10-1988 granting general exemptions to the extent of Ac. 5-00 in favour of each declarant as regards the lands situated in the peripheral area. According to them the lands in their possession are within the peripheral area and there by it stood exempted. They contend that the notification under Sec. 10 (3) dated 9-3-1998 and the consequential proceedings issued under Section 10 (5) dated 8-7-1998 cannot be sustained, once the lands stood exempted from the purview of Chapter III of the Act.

( 6 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that on the declaration filed by Narayandas under section 6 of the Act, an order dt. 12-11-1982 was passed by the 2nd respondent declaring the he holds 3035 sq. mts. of land in excess of ceiling limit and the same became final, since no appeal was filed against it. It is also the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have purchased the land, which was declared as excess and it is not open to them to challenge any proceedings, which have already become final. It is stated that the exemption under G. O. Ms. No. 733 dated 31-10-1988 is not automatic. They allege that the declarant himself did not approach the respondents seeking exemption under the said G. O. , and, as such, the question of petitioners claiming any exemption does not arise.

( 7 ) SRI. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners , submits that there did not exist any necessity for the declarant to file any appeal, because the exemption granted under G. O. No. 733 dated 31-10-1988 was general in nature. He centends that in view of exemption of such lands from the purview of Chapter III as a whole, the question of vesting of such land under Section 10 (3) or initiation of further proceedings under Section 10 (5), etc. , does not arise. He relies upon several judgments of this court and that of Supreme Court.

( 8 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for assignment, on the other hand, submits that once the order dated 12-11-1982 passed under Section 8 (4) of the Act has become final and the lands stood in the Government,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document