Actual physical possession of surplus land must be established by cogent evidence to avoid abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act. Mere paper possession is insufficient, and mandatory procedural requirements for notification and service under the original statute must be strictly followed.

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati)

Challenging the common order dated 04.02.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.8716 of 2008, 12390 & 21393 of 2012, the appellants who were the petitioners in the said writ petitions, preferred these intra Court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent .

2. Inasmuch as these appeals stem out of a common order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts that led to filing of these writ appeals are summarized hereunder:

(a) Originally, Sri Pydi Appana & Sri Pydi Krishna Sarma are the absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac.3.52 cents in Sy.No.59/3 situated in Marripalem village, Visakhapatnam (herein after referred to as ‘subject property’) and they have executed a registered lease document No.1138/1964 dated 22.04.1964 in favour of M/s A.P.Electrical Equipment Corporation Ltd., Visakhapatnam (herein after referred to as ‘Company’) for a period of 99 years and the said Company established its unit for manufacturing of electrical transformers, etc. It appears that, after the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, Act,1976) came into force, the Company, being the lease holder of the subject property, filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976 in respect of properties owned and possessed by it within the Urban Agglomeration of Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam. In the said declaration, apart from the land owned by it in Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam and other places, the subject property in Sy.No.59/3 was shown as leased lands with structures in its occupation claiming exemption under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1976. In the course of time, the Company became defunct and was closed w.e.f. January, 2000.

(b) After the demise of Sri Pydi Appana & Sri Pydi Krishna Sarma, Smt Pydi Varahalamma and her two sons, succeeded the ownership of the subject property and filed O.S.No.516 of 2005 seeking eviction of the Company from the subject property, which was decreed on 11.04.2007. The appeal, which was preferred by the Company, was allowed setting aside the eviction orders on 07.09.2007 and the said order was questioned by way of filing second appeal vide S.A.No.1212 of 2007 which is pending consideration.

(c). While so, the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad (2nd respondent in W.P.No.8716/2008) passed final orders dated 03.02.2004 under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 holding that the Company is the surplus holder of land to an extent of 39559.83 Sq.mts wherein Sy.No.59/3 (subject property) was shown as exempted under Section 4(11) of the Act, 1976. Against the said order, the Company preferred an appeal wherein the appellate authority has observed that, the surplus land held by the Company would be 48527.13 Sq.mts not 39559.83 Sq.mts and remanded the matter for reconsideration. It appears that, even in the revised order dated 20.03.2007, the subject property with structures, roads, etc., were exempted under Section 4(11). Thus, the exemption of subject property under Section 4(11) attained finality.

(d). The