1. Challenge against proceedings initiated under the urban land ceiling law concerning land alleged to be surplus, in the absence of mandatory statutory notices and lawful physical possession. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2245
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, JJ.
The Special Officer and Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Nampally – Appellant
Versus
K. Jawahar Reddy and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 107, 111, 161 of 2018
Decided On : 07-10-2025
Important Points
Agricultural land is excluded from the ULC Act. Mandatory notices under Sections 6(2) and 10(5) must be served. De jure vesting under Section 10(3) without actual physical possession under Section 10(5)/10(6) prior to the Repeal Act, 1999, causes proceedings to abate automatically under Section 3.
Subject
Civil Law - Land Ceiling / Urban Land Ceiling
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 2(o), 2(q), 6(2), 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Section 3 - Agricultural land is expressly excluded from the definition of “vacant land” under Sections 2(o) and 2(q) (Paras 24, 26, 52) - Statutory definition of “vacant land” must be read in conjunction with the requirement of inclusion of such land in the notified master plan for the purposes of urban agglomeration; absence of such inclusion renders proceedings without jurisdiction (Paras 25, 27) - Issuance and service of notice under Section 6(2) is a mandatory procedural requirement to afford an opportunity to every person, including subsequent purchasers, who holds or is alleged to hold land in excess of the ceiling limit to file a declaration; failure to serve such notice vitiates proceedings at their inception (Paras 33, 38, 39).
(B) Possession and Vesting - Vesting of land under Section 10(3) is only de jure (notional) and does not amount to de facto physical possession (Paras 22, 57) - Actual physical possession can be lawfully taken only by following the mandatory procedure under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act (Paras 40, 45, 57) - Requirement of giving notice under Section 10(5) is mandatory and the word “may” must be construed as “shall” (Paras 47, 57) - Unless actual, physical possession is lawfully taken prior to the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999, all proceedings initiated under the principal Act stand automatically abated by virtue of Section 3 of the Repeal Act (Paras 47, 58, 63).
Facts of the case:
The respondents acquired ownership and possession of lands through registered sale deeds and revenue mutations. The State initiated proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, asserting the lands were “vacant land” held in excess of the ceiling limit and had vested in the Government. The respondents challenged the proceedings, asserting the lands were agricultural, not included in the relevant Master Plan, and that no mandatory notices were served nor was physical possession lawfully taken before the Repeal Act, 1999.
Findings of Court:
The subject lands are agricultural in nature and therefore excluded from the purview of the Act. In the absence of a notified master plan as of the commencement of the Act, the proceedings were without jurisdiction. The respondents, as registered purchasers in possession, are “persons interested” and were entitled to notice under Section 6(2). The failure to serve mandatory notices under Sections 6(2) and 10(5) vitiates the entire proceedings. No evidence was provided to show that lawful physical possession was taken by the government in the manner prescribed by law.
Issues: The main issues were whether the subject lands fall within the definition of “vacant land,” whether subsequent purchasers are “persons interested” for notice under Section 6(2), whether failure to issue notice under Section 6(2) and 10(5) renders proceedings void, and whether the proceedings abated under the Repeal Act, 1999, due to lack of lawful physical possession.
Ratio Decidendi: Agricultural land excluded by Sections 2(o) and 2(q) cannot be treated as vacant land. Compliance with Section 6(2) and Section 10(5) is mandatory and not a mere procedural formality; non-compliance violates the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. De jure vesting under Section 10(3) is not equivalent to physical possession. Lawful physical possession must be taken via Section 10(5) or 10(6) before the Repeal Act, 1999, otherwise, all pending proceedings automatically abate under Section 3 of the Repeal Act.
Result: Writ Appeals dismissed.
(B) Possession and Vesting - Vesting of land under Section 10(3) is only de jure (notional) and does not amount to de facto physical possession (Paras 22, 57) - Actual physical possession can be lawfully taken only by following the mandatory procedure under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act (Paras 40, 45, 57) - Requirement of giving notice under Section 10(5) is mandatory and the word “may” must be construed as “shall” (Paras 47, 57) - Unless actual, physical possession is lawfully taken prior to the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999, all proceedings initiated under the principal Act stand automatically abated by virtue of Section 3 of the Repeal Act (Paras 47, 58, 63).
Facts of the case:
The respondents acquired ownership and possession of lands through registered sale deeds and revenue mutations. The State initiated proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, asserting the lands were “vacant land” held in excess of the ceiling limit and had vested in the Government. The respondents challenged the proceedings, asserting the lands were agricultural, not included in the relevant Master Plan, and that no mandatory notices were served nor was physical possession lawfully taken before the Repeal Act, 1999.
Findings of Court:
The subject lands are agricultural in nature and therefore excluded from the purview of the Act. In the absence of a notified master plan as of the commencement of the Act, the proceedings were without jurisdiction. The respondents, as registered purchasers in possession, are “persons interested” and were entitled to notice under Section 6(2). The failure to serve mandatory notices under Sections 6(2) and 10(5) vitiates the entire proceedings. No evidence was provided to show that lawful physical possession was taken by the government in the manner prescribed by law.
Issues: The main issues were whether the subject lands fall within the definition of “vacant land,” whether subsequent purchasers are “persons interested” for notice under Section 6(2), whether failure to issue notice under Section 6(2) and 10(5) renders proceedings void, and whether the proceedings abated under the Repeal Act, 1999, due to lack of lawful physical possession.
Ratio Decidendi: Agricultural land excluded by Sections 2(o) and 2(q) cannot be treated as vacant land. Compliance with Section 6(2) and Section 10(5) is mandatory and not a mere procedural formality; non-compliance violates the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. De jure vesting under Section 10(3) is not equivalent to physical possession. Lawful physical possession must be taken via Section 10(5) or 10(6) before the Repeal Act, 1999, otherwise, all pending proceedings automatically abate under Section 3 of the Repeal Act.
Result: Writ Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- property law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Respondents: K. Udayasri, M. Srinivas, V. Narsimha Goud, Rusheek Reddy K.V.
For the Respondents: K. Udayasri, M. Srinivas, V. Narsimha Goud, Rusheek Reddy K.V.
Table of Contents
2. State contends subsequent transfers are void and proceedings are valid; respondents assert land is agricultural, exempt from the act, and proceedings are void for lack of statutory notice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Court found land usage as agricultural excludes it from definition of vacant land, and deemed mandatory notice requirements under law were violated, vitiating all proceedings. (Para 24 , 26 , 27 , 33 , 34 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 45 )
4. Vesting under sub-section 3 of the act is de jure and does not dispense with mandatory notice under sub-section 5 to obtain de facto possession, failing which proceedings abate. (Para 43 , 46 , 49 , 55 , 57 , 63 )
5. The court dismissed the writ appeals, confirming the orders declaring the proceedings initiated under the urban land ceiling law as unsustainable and abated. (Para 67 , 68 )
6. Is notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 mandatory before the State can claim physical possession?
Yes. The court held that the requirement to serve notice under Section 10(5) is a mandatory condition precedent for lawful divestment of physical possession. Non-compliance renders dispossession void and creates only paper possession, failing to prevent the abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act. (Para 43 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 62 , 63 )
7. Does land mainly used for agricultural purposes fall under the scope of 'vacant land' as defined in the Act?
No. The definitions under Sections 2(o) and 2(q) of the Act expressly exclude land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Consequently, such lands are outside the jurisdictional purview of the Act, and initiation of ceiling proceedings against them is illegal. (Para 24 , 26 , 52 , 53 , 60 , 64 )
8. Who qualifies as a 'person interested' entitled to notice under Section 6(2) of the Act?
Anyone having a legal or beneficial interest in the property, including subsequent purchasers holding registered title, qualifies as a person interested. The authority is statutorily obligated to serve notice upon all such persons, not just the original owner fixed as of the commencement date of the Act. (Para 15 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 65 )
JUDGMENT :
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J.
1. These three intra court appeals arise out of a common order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 16605, 16927 and 17076 of 2008. 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 of non-service of mandatory statutory notices and absence of lawful possession having been taken prior to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (“Repeal Act”).
I. BRIEF FACTS
3. The facts, to the extent relevant, may be briefly recapitulated. The subject lands situated in Survey Nos. 284, 285 and 361/2 of Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are undisputedly agricultural lands. The respondents/writ petitioners claim ownership and possession through various registered sale deeds executed between 1989 and 2005 and their names were duly mutated in the revenue records.
4. The details of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and corresponding writ appeals filed by the State against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge and the details of the survey numbers and the subject lands are tabulated as under:
5. The appellants, however, contend that the subject lands constitute “vacant land” within the meaning of Sections 2(o) and 2(q) of the Act and were held in excess of the ceiling limit. Based on earlier proceedings initiated against the original declarants, the appellants assert that the land had vested in the Government under Section 10(3) of the Act.
6. The core issue before the learned Single Judge was whether the proceedings initiated under the Act could be sustained in the absence of:
(i) service of notice under Section 6(2) of the Act upon the respondents/writ petitioners or their predecessors-in-title.
(ii) lawful physical possession having been taken under Sections 10(5) or 10(6) of the Act prior to the enforcement of the Repeal Act, 1999.
7. The learned Single Judge, after an extensive analysis of statutory provisions and binding precedents, concluded that the proceedings suffered from fundamental jurisdictional defects and stood vitiated, resulting in their abatement under Section 3 of the Repeal Act.
8. The State has preferred these appeals contending that the learned Single Judge erred both in law and on facts in interfering with concluded proceedings and in accepting the respondents’ claim to title and possession.
9. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and Sri E. Madanmohan Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners. We have also carefully examined the record and the findings of the learned Single Judge.
II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:
a) Submissions on behalf of the Appellants (State)
10. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the appellants contended that the writ petitioners are subsequent purchasers of the lands in question and, by virtue of Section 5(3) of the Act, their sale deeds are void, as the transactions were effected after the appointed date under the Act. Consequently, it is urged that the writ petitioners are incompetent to question the proceedings initiated under the Act.
11. It is further contended that the expression “commencement of the Act” must be construed to mean the date on which the land became “vacant land” under the provisions of the Act, irrespective of its earlier classification as agricultural land. Hence, the plea of the writ petitioners that their lands are agricultural and therefore, their lands have to be excluded from the purview of the Act, is unsustainable.
12. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment further submitted that non-service of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, does not ipso facto vitiate the pr
