IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
UJJAL BHUYAN, SUREPALLI NANDA, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary – Petitioner
Versus
Sri R. Bhaskara Raju Died per Lrs. – Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos.506 and 904 Of 2013
Decided On : 28-04-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 – Discharge of obligations – Seeking a declaration that action of respondents – Held, Court are afraid, learned Single Judge committed a fundamental error in entering into an arena which should be avoided by a writ court for reasons mentioned supra – Finally, learned Single Judge noted that as respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not challenge orders of the State Government alienating land in favour of Corporation, they would not have any manner of right objecting to the State Government allocating or alienating land in favour of Corporation but respondent Nos.1 and 2 can certainly protect their right, title and interest in respect of their land – Without such clear cut demarcation, learned Single Judge directed appellants not to interfere with effective use of Acs.18.00 cents of land by respondent Nos.1 and 2 – However, it would be open to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to establish their right over what they claim to be their land before competent civil court, subject of course to limitation – Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
This judgment and order will dispose of both writ appeal Nos.506 and 904 of 2013.
2. We have heard Mr. Parsa Anantha Nageswar Rao, learned Special Government Pleader for Revenue for the appellants and Mr. Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Both the appeals arise out of the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing writ petition No.18442 of 2011 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as the writ petitioners. While State of Andhra Pradesh (now State of Telangana) and its officials are the appellants in writ appeal No.506 of 2013, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation is the appellant in writ appeal No.904 of 2013. Appellants in writ appeal No.506 of 2013 were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 5 in writ petition No.18442 of 2011, whereas appellant in writ appeal No.904 of 2013 was arrayed as respondent No.6 in writ petition No.18442 of 2011.
4. The related writ petition No.18442 of 2011 was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents i.e., appellants herein in interfering with their possession in respect of land admeasuring Acs.18.00 cents in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (‘subject land’) on the basis of panchanama of the Mandal Revenue Inspector dated 20.08.2007 and the sketch enclosed thereto is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 further sought for quashing of the same.
5. Above prayer was made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the backdrop of the following facts:
5.1. P.Narsimha Reddy and P.Seetharam Reddy being brothers and constituting a joint family were owners of land admeasuring Acs.82.68 cents in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. P.Seetharam Reddy filed ceiling declaration, so also his son P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy in discharge of their obligations under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in respect of their share of Acs.41.34 cents in the above land before the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer. Additional Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders on 28.10.1976 in the ceiling declarations holding the declarants to be non-surplus land holders. Thus, lands admeasuring Acs.41.34 cents out of the total extent of Acs.82.68 cents in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which was the share of P.Seetharam Reddy and P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy remained unaffected by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (briefly, ‘the 1973 Act’ hereinafter).
5.2. Likewise, P.Narsimha Reddy and his son P.Anji Reddy filed declarations under the 1973 Act in respect of their shares out of Acs.82.68 cents of land. On 30.10.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal passed a common order declaring that the two declarants were holding surplus lands.
5.3. Consequently, P.Narsimha Reddy and his son P.Anji Reddy in discharge of their obligations under the 1973 Act surrendered the surplus land admeasuring Acs.38.26 cents out of their share of Acs.41.34 cents.
5.4. On 01.06.1989, P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy i.e., the non-surplus land holder executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1, R.Bhaskara Raju who on his death has been substituted by his legal heirs i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 7. Respondent No.1 was authorised to sell land admeasuring Acs.4.00 in survey No.307 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Additionally, P.Venkata Narsimha Reddy orally agreed to sell another extent of land admeasuring Acs.10.00 cents in the same survey number to respondent No.1. As the entire sale consideration was received pursuant to the oral agreement, on 30.11.1989 he executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of N.Purnachander Rao and another in respe
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.
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....
Possession of land must be actual and not symbolic; unauthorized dispossession during litigation renders such actions void under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
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.
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.