SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(AP) 686

2006 (6) ALT 671 (D.B.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,
ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD
G.S. SINGHVI, C.J. and
G. BHA V ANI PRASAD, J.
Parchuri Ratnakar Rao and another - Appellants
v.
State of A.P. and others -Respondents
W A. Nos. 1336 and 1338 of 2005
Decided 27-6-2006.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Counsel for the Appellants.
Government Pleader for Assignment for the Respondents.

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sections 20, 10, 9, 2 – Surplus Land – Notifications – Whether the purchase of land declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 can claim benefit of policy contained in G.O.Ms. and seek exemption under Section 20 of Act is the question which arises for determination in these appeals filed by appellant against orders passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition respectively whereby he refused to quash final statement issued by Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, under Section 9 and notifications issued under Section 10(3) and (6) of Act in respect of land comprised in Survey belonging to late Sri V.Lakshmaiah – Held, Contention that land did not fall under "vacant land under Section 2(q) or Urban land under Section 2(o), is not open to the appellants when original owner himself filed the declaration on the premise that the land is urban vacant and never retracted from the same – Alleged bona fide belief of the appellants in the land being exempt under G.O.Ms. is rendered doubtful by their silence since their purchase in 1997 and even after the officials taking over possession in 1998 till 2005 – Irrespective of whether abnormal and unexplained delay in approaching Court defeats the request of appellants for exercise of equitable jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India or not, appellants have to fail for other reasons elaborated above –Impugned orders of Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions at the admission stage need no interference – Writ Appeals Dismissed

ORDER (Per G. Bhavani Prasad, J.)

Whether the purchase of land declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act) can claim benefit of the policy contained in G.O.Ms. No.733, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 31-10-1988 and seek exemption under Section 20 of the Act is the question which arises for determination in these appeals filed by the appellant against orders dated 7-7-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 14662 and 14675 of 2005 respectively whereby he refused to quash final statement issued by Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Warangal (hereinafter described as Special Officer) under Section 9 and notifications issued under Section 10(3) and (6) of the Act in respect of land comprised in Survey No. 182/4 belonging to late Sri V. Lakshmaiah.

2. The appellants claim to have purchased 3448.50 square yards of land comprised in Survey No.182/4 situated at Shayampet, Hanamkonda Mandai, Warangal District from V. Veera Swamy @ Kotaiah, V. Veeramallu, V. Veeresham and V. Laxminarayana, all sons of V. Laxmaiah, V. Prabhakar s/o Veera Swamy @ Kotaiah and V. Mallesham s/o V. Veeramallu by registered sale-deeds dated 26-8-1997. In the year 2005, they filed separate writ petitions alleging therein that in the second week of June, 2005, the officials of the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanamkonda (for short the MRO) came to their land and attempted to take measurements. On being questioned, they told that the lands had been declared surplus by the Special Officer and, they were taking measurements of the land, as per the directions of District Collector, Warangal and the MRO. Immediately thereafter, the appellants approached the Special Officer and came to know that V. Lakshmaiah (father and grandfather of their vendors) has filed declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the agricultural lands admeasuring AC.D-04 guntas in Survey No.74/C, Ac. D-04 guntas in Survey No. 74/0, Ac.D-13guntas in Survey No.83/B, AC.D-14 guntas in Survey No.83/C, AC.0-28 guntas in Survey No.169/C, Ac.1-02 guntas in Survey No.182/4 and Ac.D-02 guntas in Survey No.180/1 in total Ac. 5-04 guntas situated at Shayampet, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. He gave out that he had four major sons at the time of coming into force of the Act. After considering the same, the Special Officer issued final statement on 16-9-1981 under Section 9 of the Act and declared that the land owner, namely V. Lakshmaiah was holding 18, 328 square metres of excess land. This was followed by notification issued under Section 10(3) of the Act whereby an extent of 889 square metres in Survey No.169/C, 744 square metres in Survey Nos. 74/C and 74/0, 2723 square metres in Survey Nos.83/8 and 83/C, 5813 square metres in Survey No. 181/4 and 8159 square metres in Survey NO.182/4 was declared as surplus land. After sometime, the Special Officer issued notification dated 24-10-1992 under Section 10(6) of the Act. The possession of the excess land is said to have been taken on 16-11-1998.

3. In the writ petitions filed by them, the appellants prayed for quashing of the final statement dated 16-9-1981 and notifications issued under Section 10(3) and (6) by contending that in terms of G.O.Ms. No.733, dated 31-10-1988, the land belonging to late Sri V. Laskhmaiah is liable to be exempted. They pleaded that the land in question was neither urban land within the meaning of Section 2(o) nor it could be treated as vacant land within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act.

4. The learned Single Judge held that the writ petitions were highly belated and are liable to b dismissed on that ground. He further held that in view of the declaration filed by the original owner under the Act, the land in question will be deemed to be urban land and, therefore, it is not open to the purchaser to question the declaration of surplus land by claiming that the land does not fall within the definition of



































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

gpt-4

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top