Common Judgment:

In these writ petitions, the orders passed by the Government under Section 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) are challenged. With slight variations, as to details, the cause of action, in both the writ petitions, is broadly similar. Petitioners are Co-operative Housing Societies. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in the two writ petitions are referred as 1st and 2nd petitioners, respectively.

Encouraged by the policy of the Government, declared through G.O.Ms.No.136, dated 28-01-1981, which provided for transfer of declared surplus land, under the Act, in favour of Co-operative Housing Societies; 1st petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.18.68 cents in R.S.No.174, of Gollapudi village; and the 2nd petitioner purchased 2738 sq. meters of land in R.S.No.66/1, of Bhavanipuram Revenue Village, for the benefit of their members. Both the villages, referred to above, are part of Vijayawada Urban Agglomeration. They were granted necessary permissions, under the Act, for the purchase. In respect of the first society, exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31-10-1988 was also extended.

Before the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 28-01-1981 could accrue to the petitioners, the Government reversed its policy, through G.O.Ms.No.964, dated 27-06-1983. Enormous litigation resulted out of it. This Court had set aside G.O.Ms.No.964, and it is stated that the S.L.P. filed by the Government against the judgment of this Court was withdrawn. That, however, is a different aspect.

Petitioners intended to avail the benefit of exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act, and accordingly made applications. The applications were processed at various stages, and favourable recommendations have been made by the authorities concerned. However, through orders dated 08-09-1997 and 03-07-1997, the Government rejected the applications of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that, though they have made out valid case for grant of exemption, the Government rejected their applications, without any basis. The principal contention urged on their behalf is that the orders do not state any reasons, and thereby they are violative of principles of natural justice, apart from being unconstitutional.

On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavits are filed in the writ petitions. After referring to the contentions of the petitioners, it is ultimately urged that the discretion of the Government, to grant or to refuse, exemption, is absolute, and the petitioners cannot claim it, as of right. It is also their case that the necessity to state the reasons would arise, if only exemption is granted, and not when it is refused.

Sri. P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Act, being an expropriatory legislation, needs to be interpreted strictly, and that the only window, through which an aggrieved party was able to ventilate his grievance, is closed by the respondents, without any basis. He contends that when Parliament had conferred upon the State Government, the power to grant exemption, if necessary facts and circumstances exist, the Government cannot boast to itself, the power to indiscriminately reject all the applications, as a matter of policy. He places reliance upon certain decided cases, in support of his submissions.

Learned Government Pleader for Assignments, on the other hand, submits that the object of the Act is to ensure that the urban property does not remain in few hands, and the petitioners cannot claim any exemption under the Act, as a right. He too places reliance upon certain precedents, and submits that the power of the Government, to reject applications, without stating reasons; has been upheld on several occasions.

With an object of discouraging the concentration of urban lands, in a few hands, and to ensure proper distribution thereof, the Parliament enacted the Act in the year 1976. The validity of the same was upheld by the Supreme Court thr