IMPORTANT POINT
Third-party purchasers cannot challenge void transactions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, as established by the court's interpretation of the Act's provisions.

ORDER:

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Mr.K.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

PRAYER:

2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :

“…declaring the proceedings in File No.F1/3272/6(1)/06 dated 4.2.2006 and the Panchanama Proceedings dated 11.3.2008 under Section 10(6) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is contrary to law, illegal, void, violative of Principles of Natural justice and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the above proceedings in the interest of justice…”.

3. PERUSED THE RECORD :

The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, in particular, paras 7, 8 and 9, read as under:

“7. It is further submitted that, the petitioner society is 3rd party purchaser of the plots in violation of the provisions U/s. 5(3) of the ULC Act. In respect of issuing the orders in the name of the dead person, it is submitted that, it is clearly mentioned in above paras that on enquiry it is found that the land owner expired and whereabouts of legal heirs are not known. Therefore, the proceedings were issued affixed on the existing boulder in the subject site and also on the notice board of Gram Panchayat duly conducting panchanama. In response to the said proceedings neither the legal heirs of pattadars nor the purchasers of the plots including the petitioner society have filed any representation before the then Special Officer, U.L.C., Hyderabad. And further submitted that, the petitioners society is neither the land owner nor legal heir of the land owner but only 3rd party purchaser, as such the petitioner society is not competent to challenge the proceedings issued under the ULC Act.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein stated that the pattadar E.Mallaiah expired in the year 1972 and that the legal heirs of pattadars have executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of one B.Ravindra S/o late Rangaiah in the year 1988 i.e., after the U.L.C. Act 1976 came into force. The said G.P.A. holder stated to has developed the land into residential plots and sold to various persons who are stated to be members of petitioners Society herein. That sale of any land situated in core area and peripheral area after commencement of the U.L.C. Act, 1976 is null and void U/s. 5(3) of the Act.

9. In reply to paras 5 to 8, it is respectfully submitted that, the 3rd party purchaser's of the individual plots in Sy.Nos.30 and 31 of Guttalabegumpet Village, Smt P. Sudha Rani W/o. P. Achyutha Ramaiah & (8) others have filed W.P.No.20287 of 2013 and the said writ petition was allowed on 28-04-2014 based on the judgment rendered in W.P.No.22077 of 2009 dated 31-12-2013 wherein the U.L.C. proceedings in file No.F1/3272/6(1)/2006 was set aside. Aggrieved by the above orders of this Hon'ble Court, the Government filed writ appeal in W.A.S.R.No.78377 of 2014 in W.P.No.22077 of 2009. It is further submitted that, Writ Appeal Nos. 275/2018, 276/2018 and 278/2018 have been preferred by certain persons claiming interest in the same land against the orders in W.P.Nos. 20287/2013, 23634/2009, 22077/2009. In this regard it is submitted that the Hon'ble Court in its common orders in W.A.Nos. 275/2018, 276/2018 and 278/2018 dated: 29-03-2022 ordered as "In the considered opinion of this Court, title dispute cannot be decided in writ appeal and therefore, liberty is granted to take recourse to the other civil remedies available under the law. With the aforesaid, the present writ appeals and the leave petitions stand disposed of". Therefore the petitioner society herein is not entitled for any relief as sought for in these paras and the writ petition is not maintainable under law and is liable for dismissal.

4. The case of the Petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the a