Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, JJ.
Nagarjuna Nagar Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.1602 of 2018
Decided on : 01-04-2022
Writ Appeal - Land Regularisation - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 8(1), 8(3), 8(4), 10(3), 10(6), 23(4) - G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 17.01.2005 - The court upheld the regularisation of land in favor of the respondent No.5 under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 27.02.2002. The appellant association failed to establish their claim over the land, and the respondent No.5, a bona fide purchaser, was found to be in legal possession of the land since 1993.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Nagarjuna Nagar Welfare Association, filed a writ appeal against the action of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in regularising the occupation of respondent No.5 in respect of a piece of land. The appellant claimed that the land could be converted into a park or a lung space for the colony people.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the action of the District Collector in regularising the land in favor of the respondent No.5, as the appellant association failed to establish their claim over the land. The court found that the respondent No.5, a bona fide purchaser, was in legal possession of the land since 1993.
Issues: The main issue was the regularisation of land in favor of respondent No.5 and the claim of the appellant association over the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the official respondents followed the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 27.02.2002 in regularising the land in favor of the respondent No.5. The appellant association failed to establish their claim over the land, and the respondent No.5, a bona fide purchaser, was found to be in legal possession of the land since 1993.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
The present appellant before this Court, Nagarjuna Nagar Welfare Association has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the action of the Government of Andhra Pradesh/respondent No.1 in the writ petition in regularising the occupation of respondent No.5/Sri M.Pratap Reddy in respect of piece of land vide G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 17.01.2005.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/Nagarjuna Nagar Welfare Association, which is representing the colony people, earlier came up before this Court by filing a writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.2577 of 2000 being aggrieved by the action of the District Collector, Hyderabad in rehabilitating hut dwellers and in respect of construction of multi-storeyed complex. The writ petition was dismissed on 17.06.2005 and no construction was raised over the land admeasuring 290 square meters. The appellant herein raised a ground in the writ petition that the land they are claiming can be converted into a park or a lung space and can be enjoyed by the colony people.
The facts of the case further reveal that G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 17.01.2005 was issued by the Collector mentioning that the respondent No.5 is in possession of the land and he has made an application on 13.12.2004 for regularising his possession by paying amount to the State Government. The petitioner, who is an appellant before this Court, has raised a ground that in earlier round of litigation, i.e., in W.P.No.2577 of 2000, the Mandal Revenue Officer filed an affidavit stating that the possession of the land was taken on 28.10.1998 by him and a boundary wall has been constructed. It was further stated that the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad gave a false report stating that the respondent No.5 is in possession of the land and an order of regularisation was passed on 17.01.2005.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the earlier round of litigation, once an affidavit was filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer stating that the land is in possession of the State Government and by no stretch of imagination, it could not have been regularised in the method and manner it was done. The learned Single Judge has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the writ petition.
4. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent No.2/Special Officer and Competent Authority stating that one Smt. Chitra Narsing Rao was the owner of the schedule land to an extent of 1337.67 square meters in Survey No.156/1 (old) and 165/5 (new) of Lallaguda Village, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District and she filed a declaration under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the ULC Act, for brevity). An enquiry took place as required under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, a notice under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act was issued on 15.01.1977 inviting objections and a final order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act was passed on 04.01.1978 holding that the landholder was having surplus land to an extent of 302.41 square meters situated at old survey No.156/1 and 165/5 (new) of Lallaguda Village of Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad and accordingly a notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published in A.P.Gazette No.17, dated 21.05.1998 and an order under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act was issued vide proceedings dated 26.08.1998. The surplus vacant land to an extent of 302.31 square meters was handed over to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally on 28.10.1998 and at present, the land is vacant on ground. It has been further stated that in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.2577 of 2000, it was stated by the Mandal Revenue Officer that the land is covered with compound wall and is in his possession and it was also stated in the affidavit that the colony people have never used the said place as park or a playground.
5. The respondent No.2/Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad has further stated in the counter affidavit before the learne
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were followed in the regularisation of land, and the court upheld the righ....
Possession of land must be actual and not symbolic; unauthorized dispossession during litigation renders such actions void under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
The court held that disputed questions of title and possession cannot be resolved in a writ petition, and the petitioners were entitled to remain in possession of the land despite ULC proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would not confer any benefit on the owner of the land if possession has been t....
The central legal point established is that the rejection of regularization applications must comply with the ULC Act and G.O.Ms. No. 455, and must adhere to principles of natural justice.
Mandatory notice under ULC Act is essential; lack of due process invalidates claims of possession by the state over land.
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
