IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
B. Ravi Kumar Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.8292, 25859 and 33645 of 2021
Decided On : 20-06-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 300-A - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Land - Sale Deed – Possession - Whether land, which is not in possession of declarants, can be computed to his or her holding – Held, Learned counsel has also drawn attention of Court to printed panchanamas where under respondents claimed to have taken over possession of subject land - As it is observed in preceding paragraphs that subject land should not have been computed to holding of declarants, all subsequent proceedings - Contention of learned Special Government Pleader is without any merit for following reasons - First of all, when land is not in possession of declarants, question of such lands being computed to their holding would not arise - Act of declarants requesting authorities to takeover these lands by treating them surplus is nothing but absurd - As a matter of fact, subject lands which were admittedly not in possession should have been deleted from holding of declarants while determining their surplus holding - Writ petitions are allowed
ORDER :
As the subject matter of the writ petitions is common and the issues involved therein are also common, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
2. WP.Nos.8292 and 25859 of 2021 are filed seeking to set aside the proposal of the respondent No.5 (District Collector, Hyderabad) in Lr.No.REV/E5/0012/2020 dated 25.02.2021 forwarded to the respondent No.1 for according permission to alienate the premises of the petitioners i.e. H.Nos.6-1-1072, 6-1-1073, 6-1-1072/1 and 6-1-1073/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, to an extent of 1287 sq. meters in T.S.No.7, Block-L, Ward No.83 of Khairatabad Village, Hyderabad, in favour of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Committee (TSERC) and trying to take forcible possession of land of the petitioners forming part of “Amaravathi Theatre” as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India claiming it to be surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
3. W.P.No.33645 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners in WP.No.8292 of 2021 seeking to set aside the proceedings in Ref.No.579/Prl.SCM/2021 dated 30.11.2021 of the respondent No.2 directing the respondent No.7 to hand over advance possession to the respondent No.5 the additional land to an extent of 500 to 600 sq. meters in T.S.No.7 Block-L, Ward 83 of Khairatabad Village, Hyderabad and proposal for formal allotment by the Government along with proceedings of the respondent No.7 in Lr.No.REV/E5/0012/20202 dated 19.03.2021 and Lr.No.REV/E5 /0012/2020 dated 31.05.2021 written to the respondent No.4 allotting land in favour of the respondent No.12 (TSERC) as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
4. The facts in W.P.No.8292 of 2021, which is a lead case, are set out in brief as under:
(b) Mrs. Ahmedunisa Begum gifted her property by way of Hiba-bill-qabz on 01.03.1957 and thereafter, recorded the same in her Memorandum of Gift Deed dated 12.04.1957 stating that 1. Vicarunissa Begum, 2. Iqbalunissa, 3. Zamelunissa, 4. Syed Khaza Maslehuddin, 5. Syed Khaza Muzafaruddin and 6. Syed Khaja Afzaluddin have equal shares in all part and parcel of the house and appurtenant land. In the said deed it was clearly mentioned that some land was leased out to M/s Burma Shell Company and site which was leased out M/s Caltex in which the donees 4 to 6 alone have equal shares. The schedule property was divided into two portions i.e. land into 2670.30 sq. meters and 2313.30 sq. meters to facilitate purchased of the same by two sets of families as such 1st part consisting of 2670.30 sq. meters was purchased by G. Laxmamma, W/o. Gandiah and 9 others through registered sale deed with document No.792 of 1978 dated 20.03.1978 from Smt. Vicarunissa Begum @ Chote Mem Saab and five others for a valid sale considered. The sale deeds were executed in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 29.08.1976 for valid consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- and Rs.2,30,000/- respective
State of Andhra Pradesh v. A. Bharathi
Hariram v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : (2013) 4 SCC 280
Raj Kumar Surana v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh : 2014 (2) ALD 125
N. Linga Rao v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh : 2017 (6) ALD 270
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.
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....
Mandatory notice under ULC Act is essential; lack of due process invalidates claims of possession by the state over land.
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.
Possession of land must be actual and not symbolic; unauthorized dispossession during litigation renders such actions void under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
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.