Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
Smt. Gonuguntla Leelavathi and Others. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (ULC), Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.12735 of 2015
Decided On : 10-07-2023
ULC ACT - SECTIONS 5(3), 6(1), 6(2), 8(1), 8(3), 8(4), 9, 10(5) - SURPLUS LAND - POSSESSION - NOTICE - SALE DEED - TRANSFER - ALIENATION - APPOINTED DAY - MASTER PLAN - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the action of respondents in treating their lands as Government lands and demanding regularization under G.O.Ms.No.58 and 59 dated 30.12.2014. Petitioners purchased the lands in 1998 and were in possession since then. Respondents initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 6(2) of the ULC Act against the original owners, R. Srinivas Reddy and others, who had sold the lands to the petitioners prior to the appointed day.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the action of the respondents in including the lands sold by R. Srinivas Reddy and his father under registered sale deed dated 08.02.1979 (which were later purchased by the petitioners) by treating the appointed day as 17.02.1976 was illegal and contrary to the judgment of this Court in B. KOMARAIAH’s case (supra).
Issues: 1. Whether the lands of the petitioners should have been computed to the holding of the declarants? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The relevant day for determining the holding of landowners in respect of land covered by the extended Master Plan is the date on which the Master Plan came into force, not the appointed day under the ULC Act. 2. The petitioners were in physical possession of the subject lands and were entitled to notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 03.01.2015 was quashed. The respondents were directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of their lands and not to treat the subject lands as Government lands or surplus lands.
ORDER :
The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in treating the lands of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.23 and 28 of Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as Government lands and demanding the petitioners through impugned notice bearing No.B/05/2015 dated 03.01.2015 issued by the respondent No.3 to get the land in alleged unauthorized occupation of the petitioners regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.58 and 59 dated 30.12.2014 as illegal and arbitrary and and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to treat the subject lands as Government lands.
2. It is submitted that the petitioners No.1 and 2 jointly purchased an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.23 and 28 of Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed dated 08.05.1998. Petitioner No.3 purchased an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in the same survey numbers under another registered sale deed dated 08.05.1998. The vendor of the petitioners purchased an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas under registered sale deed dated 08.02.1979 bearing document No.1096 of 1979 from one R. Srinivas Reddy. Ever since the petitioners had been in peaceful possession of the lands totally admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice dated 03.01.2015 stating that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the Government lands and that they are given facility of utilizing the opportunity under G.O.Ms.No.58 and 59 dated 30.12.2014 for regularization of unauthorized occupants. It is contended that the petitioners are in physical possession of the subject lands, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds in the year 1998 and they constructed sheds in the year 1999 for their business purpose.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the year 1979 Mansoorabad Village was in outskirts of the city and was not included in the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. The total land of Ac.1.00 guntas belonging to the petitioners was utilized as single block covered by common compound wall. The petitioners had been doing tissue culture business in the sheds constructed in the subject property and had been in physical possession of the lands since 1998. It is stated that the petitioners were informed that the lands in their occupation was declared surplus in File No.J2/176/2007 relating to one R. Srinivas Reddy and others. The respondent No.2 has taken up the case suo motu in the month of June 2007 on behalf of R. Srinivas Reddy and others to declare them surplus holder knowing fully well that by such time, the said persons were not in possession of the subject lands and they have already sold the land in the year 1979. Notice under Section 6(2) of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1979 (for short ‘the ULC Act’) was issued to the declarants in the month of June 2007, Section 8(4) orders were passed on 12.06.2007 and alleged possession was taken under panchanama dated 08.02.2008.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the panchanama dated 08.02.2008 it is stated that symbolic possession was taken by the respondent No.3. In the absence of taking actual possession, the respondents cannot claim to have taken possession of the subject land under the provisions of the ULC Act. It is submitted that the petitioners had been paying property tax regularly; the petitioners had been paying electricity bills in respect of the officially sanctioned service connection and there are sheds in the subject property.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment submitted that R. Srinivas Reddy and R. Dharma Reddy were holding land in Sy.Nos.23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 44 and 45 of Mansoorabad Village in excess of ceiling limit but they have not filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act. Therefore, notices under Section 6(2) of the ULC Act were issued to them on 17.03.2007 to file declaration under Section 6(1) of
The court emphasized that failure to follow mandatory procedures in declaring land surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act invalidates such proceedings, reinforcing the necessity of....
The mere vesting of land under the ULC Act does not grant the State de facto possession unless lawful possession is established; unilateral possession is insufficient for the State to retain ownershi....
Possession of land must be actual and not symbolic; unauthorized dispossession during litigation renders such actions void under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
Proceedings issued under the Urban Land Ceiling Act against a deceased declarant are null and void; possession must be established prior to claiming surplus land.
Mandatory notice under ULC Act is essential; lack of due process invalidates claims of possession by the state over land.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if actual physical possession of the land was not taken before the Repeal Act came into effect, the land cannot be said to have vested in the ....
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
