L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ appeal/ the State of Andhra pradesh challenges the order of the learned single Judge in WP. No. 3219/95 dated 13-11-1995.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are asunder: the respondents jointly owned an extent of Ac. 6-06 cents of agricultural land in sy. No. 578 of Uppal Kalan Revenue Village of Ranga Reddy District. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) became applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 17-2-1996 (sic. 1976 ). Hyderabad is one of the Urban agglomerations declared under the Act in the State of Andhra Pradesh as is evident from Schedule 1 appended to the Act. The land of the respondents fell within the urban agglomeration. The respondents claimed that they are using the said land for the purpose of agriculture. However, since the land is within the urban agglomeration, they filed a declaration as required under section 6 of the Act.

( 3 ) THE declaration filed by therespondents was processed by the 2nd appellant and ultimately an order under section 8 (4) of the Act was passed by him on 7-4-1990 deciding that the respondents hold a extent of 11439. 50 sq. mts. in excess of ceiling limits. On the same day, the statement under Section 9 of the Act was also issued in terms of order under section 8 (4) of the Act. The respondents filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 33 of the Act. The appellate authority rejected the appeal through orders dated 22-1-1991. The respondents filed w. P. No3219/95 challenging the validity of the order of the 2nd appellant dated 7-4-1990 under Section 8 (4) of the Act.

( 4 ) THE principal contention of therespondents was that their land was not covered by Master Plan that was existing as on 17-2-1976 (hereinafter referred to as the relevant date )when the Act was made applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh, that the land was being put to agricultural use and as such was not liable to be treated as vacant land and the order passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. They placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt.) v. State of u. P. and others (hereinafter referred to as atia Begum s case ).

( 5 ) FOLLOWING the judgment of the Hon blesupreme Court in Atia Begum s case, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. The leaned single Judge held that though the land in question in within the urban agglomeration of Hyderabad, it continued to be agricultural land and not a vacant land and that this land was not included in the Master Plan of Hyderabad existing as on the relevant date. After recording these findings, it was held that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the land in question at all and the order challenged in the writ petition was set aside.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader forrevenue, appearing for the appellants, submits that the order of the learned single judge is based upon the ratio of the Hon ble supreme Court in Atia Begum s case and that since the Hon ble Supreme Court in its decision in State of A. P. and others v. A. Audikesava Reddy and others (hereinafter referred to as Audikesava Reddy s case) took the view that Atia Begum s case was not correctly decided, the order is liable to be set aside and that the writ petition be dismissed;

( 7 ) SRI. C. Hanumantha Rao, the learnedcounsel for the respondents on the other hand, submits that even if the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in audikesava Reddy s case is to be applied, the fact remains that as on the relevant date the master Plan of Hyderabad did not include the land of the respondents and it was only at a later date that the Master Plan was extended covering these lands. According to him, though me Master Plan extended at a later date, the holdings of the respondents were decided with reference to the relevant date and the same is not permissible in law.

( 8 ) TH

Click Here to Read the rest of this document