Mandatory compliance with statutory notice requirements is essential for valid proceedings under land regulation laws; non-compliance renders actions void and proceedings abated upon repeal.

JUDGMENT :

Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.

These three intra court appeals arise out of a common order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 19512 and 21914 of 2008 and 15224 of 2011. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are substantially common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants (State) assail the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the impugned proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (“the Act”) were set aside on the ground that mandatory statutory notices, particularly under Sections 8(3) and 10(5) of the Act, were not served on the declarant or the person in possession.

I. BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The material facts, shorn of unnecessary detail, are that the lands in dispute are situated in Survey Nos. 157 and 158 of Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short “the Subject Lands”). The subject lands are recorded as agricultural lands, a fact which is not seriously disputed. The respondents / writ petitioners claim ownership and possession on the strength of a registered Sale Deed and an Agreement of Sale dated 24.03.1983, supported by continuous revenue entries (Pahanies) evidencing their possession.

4. The particulars of the writ petitions instituted by the respondents and the corresponding writ appeals preferred by the State are as follows:

5. The case of the appellants is that the subject lands constitute “vacant land” within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act, that they were held in excess of the ceiling limit, and that upon completion of proceedings under the Act against the original declarants, the lands stood vested in the Government by operation of Section 10(3).

6. Before the learned Single Judge, the controversy crystallized around the following questions:

(i) Whether actual possession of the subject land was taken in accordance with Sections 10(5) or 10(6) of the Act?

(ii) Whether the mandatory requirement of Section 8 of the Act was complied with and

(iii) Whether the petitioners were in possession of the land as on the relevant cut-off date.

7. The learned Single Judge, upon an exhaustive examination of the statutory framework and binding judicial precedents, held that the proceedings under Section 8 of the Act were vitiated due to non- service of the mandatory notice under Section 8(3). In the absence of such service, the consequential order under Section 8(4) was declared illegal.

8. It was further held that there was a clear failure of application of mind on the part of the competent authority in declaring the land as surplus, inasmuch as no consideration was given to the crucial issue whether the land fell within the definition of “urban land” or “vacant land” under Sections 2(o) and 2(q) of the Act. The report of the Enquiry Officer dated 31.07.1979, which categorically recorded that the land was agricultural in nature and reflected as such in the revenue records, was ignored without assigning reasons, contrary to Section 2(o)(B) of the Act.

9. The learned Single Judge further found that the State failed to establish lawful and actual physical possession of the land under Section 10 of the Act. There was no proof of service of notices under Sections 10(5) or 10(6). The alleged taking over of possession on 28.08.1995 was found to be merely symbolic. The panchanama dated 25.08.1995 did not disclose the precise extent or identifiable boundaries of