SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is holding an extent of Ac. 1-32 guntas appurtenant to bungalow bearing No. 42 situate at Careappa road, Bolaram, Secunderabad. The petitioner filed her declaration under the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for short "the Act". She was declared to possess an extent of 3627. 65 square meters of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. The petitioner then filed an application dated 16-9-1976 before the competent authority under Section 20 of the Act for exemption of that excess extent of land. That application was rejected by the 1st respondent herein in its proceedings no. ULC/dlc/eed/glr No. 1/294/76/ 1580 D (L) dated 14-5-1980. The petitioner submits that she was not informed of the rejection of her application and it is only when the excess land was sought to be taken over she came to know of the order of rejection and she filed this writ petition. Initially the petitioner only prayed for a declaration that the action of the respondents in taking possession of the land in question is illegal. Later she filed W. P. M. P. No. 32835 of 1995 for amendment of the prayer seeking the relief that the proceedings of the respondents is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the same is void. That petition is ordered and the writ petition is allowed to be amended.

( 2 ) THE Defence Estates Officer filed counter-affidavit for the respondents. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the request of the petitioner for exemption was rejected and the order of rejection was issued in her name, as such it would not be correct to say that the communication was not received by her. It is further stated that the proceedings under Sections 8 (2) to 10 (5) of the Act have been concluded and the petitioner was directed to hand over the excess land. It is, however, added that the claim of the petitioner to exempt the appurtenant land is superfluous as the same is already allowed to be retained by the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. In the above circumstances it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

( 3 ) SRI Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of rejection is a bald order without any reason and it was also passed without giving an opportunity of being heard, therefore it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the order of rejection was passed as long back as in May 1980 and the writ petition was filed in April 1987, therefore it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. It is further submitted thatthe request of the petitioner for exemption of the appurtenant land is somewhat superfluous as the appurtenant land had already been taken note of and the benefit of that was given while determining the excess land.

( 5 ) THE first question that arises for consideration is whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

( 6 ) SURELY in a case where the impugned order was passed seven years before it is questioned in the Court, it would be a valid defence to say that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. But, in this case the petitioner s specific case is that the order of rejection was not served on her. In the counter-affidavit it is not stated as to on what date the copy of the order of rejection was served on the petitioner. Faced with that situation, I granted time to the learned Standing Counsel more than once to enable her to produce the record to verify as to when the copy of the order was despatched and to see whether the record contained acknowledgement or the receipt of the impugned order by the petitioner. But the records are not produced. On the basis of the counter-averments it is not possible to conclude that the petitioner was served with a copy of the impugned order. Therefore, the ground taken by the learned Standing counsel tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document