1998 Supreme(AP) 745

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.SANJEEVA REDDY, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
Government Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
J.SRIDEVI - Respondent
Decided On : 10-22-98

Headnote:

URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - SECTIONS 2(H), 2(N), 2(O), 6(1), 10(3)(C) - MASTER PLAN - URBAN AGGLOMERATION - URBAN LAND - VACANT LAND - APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT - EXEMPTION - G.O.MS. NO. 733, REVENUE (UC-II) DEPARTMENT, DATED 31-10-1988 - G.O.MS. NO. 467, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, DATED 3-9-1996 - SCOPE - INTERPRETATION - WRIT PETITION - DIRECTIONS - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners purchased 1000 Sq. meters of land each from the pattadars of the land in S. No. 79 part of Madapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy district. At the time of purchase, the land in question was an agricultural land. As per the plan dt: 21-8-1978 prepared by the competent authorities of Survey and Land Records, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, the Muncipal limits of Hyderabad and Secunderabad is shown as 5 Kilometres away from the peripheral boundary which is the limit for Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and the same was demarcated. Thus, the peripheral area starts from the border of the municipal boundary at 5th K.M. As on the date of purchase of sites by the petitioners there was no legal restriction for transfer of agricultural land situated in the area mentioned above. In view of the Government Memo No. 132831/uc-1/88, dated 22-12-1988, there was also no bar for registration of such land by the Sub-Registrar. Sale deeds were executed in number of cases. The land in S. No. 79 in which a portion of the petitioners lands are situated in Madapur was not an urban land either at the time of coming into force of the A. P. Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1976", which came into effect w.e. f 17-2-1976 or when the master plan was amended or subsequent to that. The village Guttala Begumpet situated prior to Madapur village is not shown in Hyderabad Agglomeration map of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. When there was cloud as to the inclusion of S. No. 79 of madapur, one Smt. K. Leela Kumari, sought clarification from the Government whether Guttala Begumpet village is situated in core area or peripheral area of Hyderabad Agglomeration. The Government after satisfying with the report of its subordinates including survey officers, in Memo No. 13940/uc-II (2}/ 88-4, dated 18-4-1989 informed Smt. Leela Kumari that Guttala Begumpet village is in the peripheral area w. e. f. 16-10-1978. The Government by its order in Memo No. 50885/uc-II-I/90 dated 4-6-1990 stated that the excess vacant land upto Ac. 5. 00 excluding roads etc. in S. Nos. 12 and 13 situated at Guttala begumpet village, Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration is within the peripheral area. Thus, there is no need to issue separate orders upto Ac. 5. 00 after excluding the area required for roads, exempting the land in S. Nos. 12 and 13 of Guttala begumpet village from the provisions of the Act, 1976. At no time Madapur village was shown in Col. 2 of Schedule I. As per the Government Memo no. 139040/uc-II (2)/88-4, dated 18-4-1980, the Government of A. P. observed that Madapur village is in the peripheral area of Hyderabad Agglomeration. The Government by its G. O. Ms. No. 467, M. A. , dt: 3-9-1996 informed that the land in question situated in the peripheral area of Hyderabad Agglomeration.

Finding of the Court:

The land in question is not situated within the urban agglomeration area and not covered by the master plan existing as on 21-8-1976 Also observed that the land in question is not a vacant land and as such the provisions of the Act 1976 have no application. He found that the extension of the master plan by way of amendment to a particular area which was not included when the Act came into force, cannot alter the original nature of the land. According to him, the master plan which was amended by 28-6-1995 has no application. Even in the said amendment the lands were shown as conservation zone only. Further the lands were converted into residential zone as per the G. O. Ms. No. 467, dt. 3-9-1996. According to the learned single Judge, if position of the land is examined in the light of section 2 (o) of the Act 1976, the lands in question are not vacant lands.

Issues: None

Ratio Decidendi: The crucial date will be the date on which the Act came into force. Further any amendment shall always be meant as prospective and not retrospective unless it is so intended by the framers of the Act or the makers of the law.

Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge is confirmed.