Finality of orders under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act cannot be disturbed due to changes in law established by later Supreme Court decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, C.J.

1. Mr. P.Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana appears for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This intra court appeal emanates from order dated 13.11.2013, passed by a learned Single Judge by which writ petition viz. W.P.No.886 of 2012, preferred by the respondents has been allowed.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that father of the respondents - late Ram Reddy, was the owner of land admeasuring Acs. 33.21 guntas in various survey numbers situated at Balapoor Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In the said proceeding, the order under Section 8(1) of the Act was passed on 02.07.1994. Thereafter, final order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed on 03.11.1995 and a statement under Section 9 of the Act was issued. The aforesaid order dated 03.11.1995 was passed in favour of the respondents by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (1993) 2 SCC 546 wherein it was held that if, on the date of commencement of the Act, lands were not included in the master plan, the same cannot be subsequently included by extension of the master plan to new areas.

4. However, subsequently, earlier view taken by the Supreme Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum (supra) was reversed in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Audikesava Reddy , (2002) 1 SCC 227 . On the basis of the aforesaid subsequent decision, the enquiry officer passed a revised order on 23.05.2007 and eventually, notifications under Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act were issued on 19.06.2007, 30.07.2007 and 01.09.2007 respectively. Thereafter, declaration under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued on 18.01.2008. The respondents challenged the aforesaid order in an appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 13.02.2008.

5. The respondents thereupon filed the aforesaid writ petition, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the proceedings could have been reopened in view of change in law.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.

9. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated under the Act culminated into final order dated 03.11.1995. The aforesaid order attained finality. The competent authority under the Act has no power to reopen the proceeding, which has attained finality merely on the basis of a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the order passed in the revised proceeding dated 23.05.2007 is without jurisdiction and has rightly quashed the order passed by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority.

10. The impugned order dated 13.11.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.886 of 2012, does not warrant any interference in this intra court appeal.

11. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.