A Court exercising writ jurisdiction can only enforce the rights, which have accrued in accordance with law and not otherwise.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed questioning the high handed dispossession of the petitioner from the retainable land and order under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC Act’) dated 29.09.1988 in file C.C.No.G1/128/1987 and consequential proceedings to the extent of showing the surplus land as 25062.95 sq. meters, ignoring Section 10(1) notification whereunder surplus land was shown as 11572.95 sq. meters by the respondent No.2.

2.1 It is claimed that originally land in Sy.Nos.55, 56, 98, 99, 100, 106, 114, 650, 651 situated at Vampuguda, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District belonged to one Balaiah and Sivaiah, who are the ancestors of the petitioner. The sons of Balaiah were treated as 'A' branch and the sons of Sivaiah were treated as B branch by the ceiling authorities. The said Balaiah had three sons, namely, (1) Pedda Ramaiah (2) China Ramaiah and (3) Reddaiah. The petitioner is the son of Reddaiah. After dividing the land as per their respective shares, all the family members have filed their respective declarations before the respondent No.2. So far as declaration of the petitioner is concerned, it was numbered as C.C.No.G1/128/1987 and an extent of 46190.95 sq. meters was treated as vacant land in Sy.Nos.55, 56, 60, 650 and 651. After deleting 1000 sq. meters, for which the petitioner was entitled to, the respondent No.2 declared an extent 45190.95 sq. meters as vacant land. The declaration of the mother of the petitioner, namely, Narsamma, was dealt with separately and the vacant land was determined as 15396.97 sq. meters in file C.C.No.G1/129/ 1987.

2.2 It is stated that after identifying the vacant land as 45296.95 sq. meters, upon the objections made by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 further enquired into the matter. The petitioner applied to the respondent No.1 for grant of exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988. By memo No. 10847/UC.II/2/ 1989-2 dated 03.04.1989, the respondent No.1 issued orders granting exemption to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas. According to the petitioner, the exemption granted for Ac.5.00 guntas should be after excluding the roads and open areas. The respondent No.2 issued Section 8(4) orders on 29.09.1988. But the record of the respondent No.2 shows that note file has been prepared from 18.01.1990 onwards to finally determine the surplus land. On 20.03.1990 the respondent No.2 prepared the note file. In para 28, the respondent No.2 referred to the permission granted by the respondent No.1 in memo No.10847 on 03.04.1989 for an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas and determined the surplus land as 25062.95 sq. meters. In para 33, the respondent No.2 referred to the earlier orders issued under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act and recorded that “as the land is situated in peripheral area the declarant has approached the Government and the Government had granted exemption as per G.O.Ms.No.733”.

2.3 It is stated in para 34, the respondent No.2 had recorded, after excluding the Ac.5.00 guntas of land from 45296.95 sq. meters in Sy.Nos.55, 56, 60, 650 and 651 what is permissible area. In para 37, the respondent No.2 recorded a finding that, all the survey numbers are held jointly by other declarants and the surplus land of Peesari Mallaiah i.e. petitioner has to be identified first on the spot while making a sketch. In para 43, the respondent No.2 recorded that HUDA has approved the draft layout in respect of land covered in Sy.Nos.60(P), 650(P) and 651 of Kapra Municipality with certain conditions. In para 44, the respondent No.2 recorded a finding that SDR prepared by this office Survey Department is verified with the draft layout approved by HUDA and they are not tallying. In para 46, the respondent No.2 recorded that the petitioner was declared as excess land holder of 45296.95 sq. meters and that Peesari Mallaiah made a representation that Government ha