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

2011 Supreme(AP) 666

2011 (6) ALT 327
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
R. SUBHASH REDDY
Surender Raj Jaiswal & Another
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue, (U.C.III) Department & Another
WRIT PETITION No.26474 of 2009
Decided on : 24-08-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:M/s.Mahmood Ali, Advocate.
For the Respondents: G.P. for Land Ceilings.

Headnote:

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 20 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Declaration of Land – Writ petition is filed with prayer to issue a writ, order or a direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Memo issued by the 1st Respondent herein holding that the “…change of land use amounts to violation of the conditions of exemption granted earlier and accordingly hereby reject the request of the petitioners Sri Jeetial Ramnarayan Jaiswal and (2) others for change of land use covered by exemption U/s.20 (1)(a) of the Principal Act, 1976 to an extent of 4,550 sq. meters, situated at Premises from existing Cinema Theatre to Multiplex Theatre cum Shopping complex”, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and against the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Held, Having regard to the provisions under Section 20(1) and (2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the provisions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, it is to be held that in cases where the vacant land is exempted under Section 20 of the principal Act and where such exemption is not withdrawn before the enforcement of the Repealing Act, 1999, such land will become the free-hold land irrespective of any conditions with regard to usage of the exempted land. As held above, as the land in question has become the free-hold land in view of the Repealing Act, 1999, there appears no reason or justification for not granting permission to use the land covered by exemption proceedings, for the purpose of multiplex theatre-cum-shopping complex – In a strict sense, no such permission is necessary, but, when the competent authority under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act has not received the application, petitioner had to approach the Government, and as permission is denied by mis-construing the various provisions of the Repealing Act, 1999, the impugned order is liable to be set aside – Petition Allowed

Judgment :

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer :

“to issue a writ, order or a direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Memo No.9609/UC.III/1/2009-11, dated 29.01.2011 issued by the 1st Respondent herein holding that the “…change of land use amounts to violation of the conditions of exemption granted earlier and accordingly hereby reject the request of the petitioners Sri Jeetial Ramnarayan Jaiswal and (2) others for change of land use covered by exemption U/s.20 (1)(a) of the Principal Act, 1976 to an extent of 4,550 sq. meters, situated at Premises No.3-5-6061/1, 1061, 1062, 3-5-1062 at Narayanguda from existing Cinema Theatre to Multiplex Theatre cum Shopping complex”, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and against the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.”

2. By the aforesaid impugned order, dated 29th January 2011, passed in Memo No.9609/UC.III/1/2009-11, the Government has rejected the claim of the petitioners, seeking permission to construct a multiplex theatre-cum-shopping complex in the place of the existing cinema theatre.

3. The petitioners are the owners and possessors of the premises bearing No.3-5-6061/1, 1061, 1062 and 3-5-1062, admeasuring an extent of 4550 sq. metres of land and structures, situated at Narayanguda in Hyderabad Urban agglomeration. The said premises is being used for running a cinema theatre, namely, ‘Deepak Mahal Cinema’. On the advent of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the petitioners have filed declarations declaring various extents of land held by them along with their father. They also filed an application before the Government, seeking grant of exemption from Chapter-III of the Act, with regard to the aforesaid property, for running a cinema theatre. On the application of the petitioners, the Government has called for a report from the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling, and thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No. 1117, dated 13.07.1981, granted exemption, exempting an extent of 4550 sq. metres of land bearing MCH.No.3-5-6061/1, 1061, 1062 and 3-5-1062, subject to condition that the said land should be utilized only for the purpose of running a cinema theatre, and subject to further conditions, which read as under:

“a) The land should not be leased out or sold without the permission of the Government.

b) The land should be utilized for the said purpose failing which the exemption shall stand cancelled and the excess land will be subject to the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act.

c) The land may be mortgaged to any bank as defined under clause (a) of sub-section

(iii) of Section 19, including A.P.State Financial Corporation for the purpose of raising finances.”

In view of the exemption granted by the Government, the petitioners are using the said property for the purpose of running a cinema theatre, which they are running in the name and style of “Deepak Mahal Cinema” at Narayanguda, Hyderabad.

4. On the ground that the said theatre building has become old and the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation also has taken up road widening, which affected the premises of the petitioners, and that the remaining area will not be sufficient for parking and also to maintain fire safety rules and regulations under the Cinematography Act, having decided to construct a multiplex theatre-cum-shopping complex, they wanted to seek permission from the authorities of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). Alleging that the authorities of GHMC have not entertained the application for want of clarification/necessary permission from the Government, they approached the Government by filing a representation. On the ground that their representation was not being considered by the Government to permit them to grant permission for construction of a multiplex theatre-cum-shopping complex, they approached this Court and filed the present writ petition, and pursuant to interim orders grante























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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