The absence of required notices under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act leads to jurisdictional invalidity of encroachment proceedings.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ Mandamus declaring that the action of 2^nd respondent in issuing the impugned Proceedings No.J2/11482 to 11487/1976 dated 22.11.2002 under Section 8 (4) and all other proceedings issued upto Section 10 (6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act , 1976 and the consequential Notice issued in Letter No.6/746/2015 dated 3.7.2015 under Section 7 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the 4th respondent are contrary to principles of natural justice, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act , 1976 contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and thereby unconstitutional by holding that the land to an extent of 306.90 sq.meters in Plot No.21 Survey No.14 of Moosarambagh Village, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad District purchased by the petitioners vide Regd Sale Deed Document No.1986 of 1985 dated 19.7.1985 and the Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.1106 of 1986 dated 7.5.1986 registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Azampura, Hyderabad are legal, arid, valid and thereby they are the rightful owners and possessors of the said land.…”

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

3. It is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of various extents of lands in Plot No.21 in Survey No.14 situated at Moosarambagh, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.1986 of 1985 and 1106 of 1986, dated 19.07.1985 and 07.05.1986 respectively. It is further case of the petitioners that their vendors and their family members filed declaration under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act , 1976 (for short ‘ULC Act’) on 15.09.1976. It is stated that their vendors obtained proceedings under Section 26 of the ULC Act vide L.Dis.No.SO & CA.ULC No.D2/817/26/84, dated 17.04.1984 to sell an extent of 1,030 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.14. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 has issued proceedings vide Proc.No.J/11482/11487/76 dated 19.05.1993 stating that the surplus land held by the declarants has been determined under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act and objections, if any shall be preferred within thirty days and in response to the same, objections were filed on 06.08.1993. It is further stated that respondent No.2 has issued proceedings vide Proc.No.J2/11482 to 11487/76 dated 22.11.2002 stating that notices were issued to all the surplus land holders but no documentary evidence was produced in support of their case and accordingly, the objection petition filed by the surplus land holders was rejected. It is also stated that respondent No.4-Tahsildar has issued notice vide Lr.No.B/746/2015 dated 03.07.2015 under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act , 1905 (for short ‘Act, 1905’) stating that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the said lands and directed to submit explanation within seven days as to why action should not be taken against them for evicting from the subject lands.

4. Sri E. Madhan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents without taking into consideration of the permissions obtained by the vendor of the petitioners, have proceeded to pass orders under Section 8(1) and 8(3) of the ULC Act declaring that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners are void and same are contrary to the ULC Act.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that