The court ruled that failure to serve mandatory notices to legal representatives in surplus land proceedings renders such proceedings void, violating principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner and the respondents in these two writ petitions are one and the same and the issue involved in both these writ petitions arises out of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') and in respect of the same property, hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. WP.No.20563 of 2015 is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Saidabad, Hyderabad, in proceeding with the construction in Plot No.2, admeasuring 620 sq. yards in Sy.No.212, Vinayak Nagar Colony, Champapet Road, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad (subject property) as being arbitrary and illegal and to declare action of the respondents No.1 to 4 in not considering the application of the petitioner for regularization of the plot in terms of G.O.Ms.No.727 Revenue (UC-1) Department dated 18.06.2008, though proposals have been submitted twenty three months back and even after payment of regularization amount of Rs.16,30,200/- as being arbitrary and illegal.

3. WP.No.24851 of 2015 is filed to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings No.J2/9225/76 dated 05.09.2007 and panchanama dated 08.02.2008 of the respondent No.4 in respect of the subject property and quash the same as illegal, improper and violative of Section 10(5) of the Act and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

4. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject property having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.1401/1978 dated 17.05.1978 from the Government Press Employees Co-operative House Building Society (hereinafter referred to as 'Housing Society') and since then, the petitioner had been in possession of the subject property. The Housing Society purchased the property from the original owners/pattadars. The petitioner applied for building permission in the year 2010 with the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The corporation insisted the petitioner to get NOC from the Revenue Authorities. In the year 2011 when application was filed before the respondent No.2 for grant of NOC, for the purpose of building permission, it was processed by the respondent No.3 and proposal dated 17.01.2011 was sent to the District Collector stating that the subject land is a private patta land. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued endorsement No.E2/50/2011 dated 28.02.2011 informing the petitioner that subject property is surplus land and therefore, the application of the petitioner is rejected by the concerned committee. The respondent No.2 also informed the GHMC that the subject plot is declared as surplus and directed them not to issue building permission to the petitioner.

5. It is submitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008 for regularization of surplus ceiling land in occupation of third parties on collection of market value of the land. In terms thereof, the petitioner submitted application dated 05.09.2013 by duly paying Rs.16,30,000/- through DD No.066827 dated 05.09.2013 drawn on ICICI Bank towards regularization charges. The respondent No.4 acknowledged the application of the petitioner and submitted proposals to the Government. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 tried to occupy the subject property and the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, on 24.01.2014, who made an endorsement directing the respondent No.2 to stop construction activity pending consideration of regularization application under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008. The respondent No.2 also directed the respondent No.4 to place the matter in the next meeting in his endorsement dated 27.01.2014. The respondent No.2 further directed the respondent No.3 not to take up any construction work. As there was no information regarding the petitioner's regularization application, a representation dated 18.06.2014 was submitted by the petitioner to the Government to direct the respondent No.2 to stop the construction activity. Thereafter, another representation was made to the District Col