Back
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
G. V. Mohan and others.
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad and others.
W.P. No. 9198 of 2001 and 26206 of 2009
Decided on : 08-10-2010
b) URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976, Section 10 (5) – Plea that the owners of the surplus land have surrender on the very date of notification declaring it to be surplus land even though there is statutory time for 30 days to challenge the notification and such surrendered land was given possession to the petitioners as beneficiaries on the very same date of notification is not believable. (Para 56)
c) RULE OF LAW:- Every statutory authority is supposed to follow this fundamental principle of governance in exercising their functions under the Act. (Para 56)
d) URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976, Sections 8 (4) and 10 (5) – The competent authority under the Act to decide the surplus land is expected to act in compliance with rule of law and any acts arbitrarily without compliance of the statutory procedure complies therein is liable to be struck down. (Paras 59 to 63)
e) URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976, Sections 8, 9, 10 (1), 10 (3) and 10 (5) – Statutory authority acting under the Act not serving the notice of acquisition of land on all persons interested in the land as provided in the Act and not following the procedure prescribed therein is fatal to the very validity of those proceedings taking over possession under the Act.
f) URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976, Section 10 (5) and 10 (6) – Contrary stands taken by the Government taken with regard to taking of possession of land under the Act in the present writ petition compared to earlier proceedings, vitiate the acquisition itself.
While in the earlier proceedings Government had taken the stand that the possession was taken from the petitioner No:1, while in the present writ petition the plea is that the petitioners themselves have handed over the surplus land on the very date of the notice. Such contradictory stands vitiate the very plea that the land was taken possession. (Para 69)
g) URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976, Section 10 (5) – Contention of the Government that the owner of land handed over the possession of land declared as surplus land under the Act on the very date of notification in the form of a declaration before the Dy. Thahasildar. (Para 70)
h) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section 10 (5) – Where the very alleged handing over the possession by the owners of the land declared to be surplus held to the District Collector in the form of a Declaration was heldbe irregular and illegal, HUDA subsequent transferee under the orders of the District Collector will not have any locus stand to contest the writ petition in this regard. (Para 92)
I ) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226 – High Court cannot enquiry into disputed questions of law under the land acquisition with regard to taking over possession under the Act. (Para 41)
j) URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) REPEAL ACT, 1999:- Object of the Act held to be in deference of the public opinion that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 had failed in its object of preventing concentration of economic power in the hands of few urban rich people and instead pushed prices of urban land to unconscionable level and in order to ease the housing and industry in urban areas, it is better to repeal the said law. (Para 41)
Since the subject-matter of both the writ petitions is inter-connected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their status in W.P. No. 9198 of 2001. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IN W.P. No. 9198 of 2001
2. The petitioners, who are the sons and grand-daughter of one late Sri. G.V.L.S. Sarma respectively, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 9198 of 2001, praying the Court to grant the following relief: To issue a Writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in ULC Appeal No. Hyd. 17/2001 dated 28.04.2001, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.E2/382/74, dated 08.11.2000, as illegal, void and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. Petitioner No.1, who swore to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that his father late Sri. G.V.L.S. Sarma had purchased land in an extent of Acs. 16.23 guntas and 115 Sq. yds., in Sy. Nos. 105, 110, 113, 114 and 149/3 of Yousufguda village, Khairtabad mandal, (Old Golconda Mandal), Ranga Reddy District, corresponding to T.S. Nos. 16/1 and 16/2, in the month of December, 1960, and since then cultivated the same and also raised several structures therein. That after the death of his father and after coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ULC Act'), himself and his brother, namely petitioner No. 2, filed declarations in Form-I under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act before respondent No.3, namely the Special Officer and Competent Authority. Respondent No.3 after conducting necessary enquiry, passed orders dated 07.05.1980 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act. Questioning the said order, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed statutory appeal under Section 33 of the ULC Act before respondent No. 2-appellate authority, who by orders dated 27.01.1997 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for conducting de novo enquiry.
4. Pursuant to the order of remand, respondent No.3 conducted de novo enquiry, and ultimately, on 08.11.2000, passed orders under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, declaring petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to be surplus holders of land to an extent of 23,930.38 Sq. mts. each in T.S. No. 16/1 and 16/2 of Yousufguda village, in excess of the ceiling limit. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed statutory appeal, under Section 33 of the ULC Act before respondent No.2, accompanied by stay application. As no orders were passed by respondent No.2 on the stay application pending disposal of the appeal, and as during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3 was taking steps to dispossess them, the petitioners filed writ petition in W.P. No. 3878 of 2001. The said writ petition, having regard to the statement made by the learned Government Pleader for Assignments that possession of the land was already taken on 23.02.2001, this Court by order dated 07.03.2001, while observing that as the notice dated 15.02.2001 under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was served on the petitioner on 23.02.2001, possession of the land could not have been taken by the respondents before 23.03.2001, disposed of the writ petition, directing maintenance of status quo with respect to possession pending disposal of the appeal by respondent No.2, and further directed that the respondents therein shall not alienate or make any constructions whatsoever on the land in question on the ground that possession had been taken over by them on 23.02.2001. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.2, vide orders dated 28.04.2001, dismissed the appeal. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition in W.P. No. 9198 of 2001.
5. This Court vide orders dated 08.05.2001, while admitting the writ petition, gran
gpt-4
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
