IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, T.VINOD KUMAR, JJ.
M/s. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And others. - Appellants
Versus
The Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.697 of 2023
Decided on : 24-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the land ownership and disputes (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. court observations regarding the proceedings (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments from respondents against appellant's claim (Para 19 , 20) |
| 4. legal standards for adjudicating title issues in writ petitions (Para 34 , 41) |
| 5. final ruling and court directions on land possession (Para 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT :
This intra-court appeal is filed against common order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge by which three writ petitions have been dismissed. However, challenge in this appeal is confined to order of the learned Single Judge insofar it pertains to writ petition No.30855 of 2016 filed by the appellants, which has also been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellants’ challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra:
(i) FACTS:-
2. Eleven pattedars held the land measuring 525.39 acres situated at Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agricultural Ceiling Act’) came into force on 01.01.1975, which prescribed a ceiling limit on agricultural lands. A proceeding under the Agricultural Ceiling Act was initiated in respect of entire land in survey No.83 measuring 525.39 acres situated at Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Land Reforms Tribunal passed a common order dated 02.06.1976 and declared the land measuring 27.27 acres in survey No.83 to be surplus agricultural land. Thereafter, by another common order dated 16.06.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal declared land measuring 71.20 acres in survey No.83 to be surplus land. Thus, out of survey No.83, only measuring 99.07 acres was declared as surplus land.
3. The possession of the aforesaid land which was declared as surplus agricultural land to the extent of 99.07 acres in survey No.83 was taken on 23.11.1976 by the State Government. The Parliament in pursuance of resolutions passed by various State Legislatures including erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh enacted Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Urban Land Ceiling Act’). In the aforesaid Act, the appointed date as defined under Section 2(a) means the date of introduction of the Urban Land Ceiling Act in the Parliament which is 15th of January, 1976. The aforesaid Act became applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh on 17.02.1976. A Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 13.10.1977 in W.P.No.17077 of 1977 inter alia held that provisions of the Agricultural Ceiling Act are not applicable to vacant lands situated within the urban agglomeration. The lands comprised in survey No.83 were situated within the urban agglomeration of city of Hyderabad and therefore, the holders of land were required to file statement under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thereupon, the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were initiated to determine the excess land.
4. The competent authority in exercise of powers under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act issued separate final statements on 06.12.1979 and declared lands measuring 470.33 acres to be excess vacant land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Thereafter, notification under Section 10(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act was issued on 16.01.1980 in respect of land measuring 470.33 acres, which was followed by a notification dated 24.01.1981 under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act notifying that land measuring 18,94,473 square meters (468.234 acres) by which the land vested absolutely in the State Government. The notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act was issued on 26.02.1981 on the general power of attorney (GPA) holder by which he was asked to deliver possession of the land to the extent of 468.234 acres.
5. It appears that GPA holder submitted an application before the Land Reforms Tribuna
Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi ((2010) 1 SCC 234
Bajranglal Shivchandrai Ruia v. Shashikant N.Ruia
Balwant Vithal Kadam v. Sunil Baburaoi Kadam
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal
ITC Limited v. Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited
Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Midnapur Zamindary Company Limited v. Naresh Narayan Roy
Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria
Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T.
Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu
Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
State of West Bengal v. West Bengal Registration Copywriters Association
State of Telangana v. P.Balabhaksar Reddy
State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyaysayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh
Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri
Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Rm.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar (AIR 1953 SC 235)
Union of India v. Dinesh Prasad
AI
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 the importance of proving possession for the purposes of the Repeal Act and the statutory bar on transfer created by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Re....
An order declaring land surplus issued in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and violates principles of natural justice, warranting its quashing.
Delay in asserting rights under land ceiling regulation impacts maintainability of writ petitions; the court dismisses claims due to laches but permits civil recourse.
Timely objection is essential in ceiling proceedings; long delay in seeking judicial intervention leads to barring of relief due to laches, irrespective of alleged possession.
Possession of property cannot be disturbed without due process; rights must be protected under constitutional provisions, and authorities are bound by statutory timelines and requirements.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.