P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed by Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, urban Land Ceilings, Nampally, questioning the order passed by the learned single Judge, allowing Writ Petition No. 7127 of 1996.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT is a registered firm. It has purchased an extent of 3009. 17 sq. yards of vacant site-equivalent to 252597 sq. metres, from the A. P. Housing board, in public auction held on 28-12-1994 for a consideration of rs. 37,67,330/ -. On receipt of consideration, the A. P. Housing Board, represented by its Estate Officer, executed a registered sale deed bearing document No. 677/95 dated 24-2-1995 in favour of respondent-firm, and accordingly, possession was delivered.

( 3 ) THE respondent-firm, with a view to construct a Cinema Theatre in the above plot of land, approached several authorities, including Hyderabad urban Development Authority (HUDA), seeking no Objection Certificate the HUDA while endorsing no Objection , through its letter dared 9-1-1996, imposed a condition that the clearance is subject to obtaining clearance from the Urban Land Ceilings viz. , the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent-firm approached the appellant by filing declaration on 3-2-1996 under Section 6 (1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1996 (sic. 1976)-hereinafter called the Act . Curiously, the appellant-Competent Authority, passed an order dated 18-3-1996 under Sections 8 (4) and 9 of the Act, holding that the respondent-firm is entitled to hold an extent of 1000 sq. metres only under section 4 (1 ) (b) of the Act, and as such, the balance extent of 1515. 97sq. metres is determined as surplus land. Questioning the said order, the respondent firm filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the nature of the land has to be determined with reference to the Master Plan which was existing as on the date of commencement of the act and not according to the Master Plan prepared subsequent to the commencement of the Act, and inasmuch as Kukatpalli, where the land is situate, is beyond the Municipal limits of Hyderabad as on the date of the commencement of the Act, and the Master Plan covering the said land came to be prepared and published only on 29-9-1980, which is much leter to the commencement of the Act, the provisions of the Act have no application to the said land. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge, did not decide whether the firm should be treated as jurisdic (sic. juridical) person/ individual, or whether the land should be divided notionally between the partners for purpose of computation under the Act.

( 4 ) THE question, whether the area, in which the vacant site is situated which is not included in the Master Plan at the time of commencement of the Act, but was included in the Master Plan subsequent to the commencement of the act, is governed by the provisions of the Act or not, has to be decided in the batch of Writ Appeals which are admitted and pending. But this writ appeal need not be deferred for decision till then, inasmuch as the same can be derided on the other point which is left undecided as unnecessary by the learned single judge.

( 5 ) THE contention of the respondent-firm is that inasmuch as it has purchased an extent of 3609. 17 sq. yards of vacant site, equivalent to 2525. 97 sq. metres, the said land has to be notionally divided among the partners for purpose of ascertaining, whether they have any surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; but the entire land cannot be shown in the holding of the firm ignoring its partners. Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 reads as follows:"69. EFFECT OF NON-REGISTRATION:- (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the fir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document