Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 25185

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ
Special Officer And Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Nampally Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
K Jawahar Reddy – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL Nos. 107, 111 and 161 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: GP for Assignment
For the Respondents: Rusheek Reddy K.V., K. Udayasri, M. Srinivas, V. Narsimha Goud

Proceedings initiated under the Act against agricultural land without service of mandatory notices to interested parties and without taking actual physical possession before the Repeal Act are non-est, void, and stand automatically abated by the Repeal Act.

Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 2(o), 2(q), 5(3), 6(2), 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Section 3 - Agricultural land exclusion - Vesting of land - Requirements for lawful possession - Meaning of 'persons interested' - Non-service of statutory notices - Jurisdictional foundational facts - The Act excludes land mainly used for agricultural purposes from the definition of vacant land. Vesting under Section 10(3) is de jure and does not equate to de facto possession. Compliance with notices under Section 6(2) and Section 10(5) is mandatory. Failure to serve notice upon interested parties vitiates proceedings. Absent lawful possession before the Repeal Act, proceedings abate. (Paras 6, 17, 24, 32, 33, 40, 42, 43, 45, 52, 63)

(B) Appeals - Scope of judicial review - Legislative mandate - Principles of natural justice - Proceedings lacking mandatory statutory notice and based on non-existent jurisdictional facts are void ab initio and constitute a nullity. (Paras 35, 49, 50)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged an order setting aside proceedings initiated under the Act. Respondents, registered purchasers of land, contended that the subject lands were agricultural, excluded from the Act, and that mandatory notices under Sections 6(2) and 10(5) were never served. The State argued that the lands were vacant and that the purchasers had no locus standi, as their transactions were void under Section 5(3).

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lands were agricultural and did not fall under the definition of vacant land. Furthermore, the authorities failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements, and no lawful physical possession was ever obtained in terms of the Act.

Issues: The main issues were whether the subject land qualified as 'vacant land', whether subsequent purchasers were 'persons interested' entitled to notice, and whether non-compliance with statutory notice requirements rendered proceedings abated due to the Repeal Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that agricultural land falls outside the purview of the Act. Because mandatory notices under Sections 6(2) and 10(5) were not served on the interested parties and physical possession was never lawfully taken, the proceedings remained de jure and were not effectively completed prior to the repeal, leading to their automatic abatement under the Repeal Act.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. agricultural lands are excluded from the definition of vacant land under the ulc act. (Para 3 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 52 , 53 , 54)
2. failure to serve mandatory notice under section 6(2) of the act vitiates proceedings. (Para 10 , 15 , 16 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 50)
3. physical possession not lawfully taken entails abatement of proceedings under the repeal act. (Para 17 , 22 , 23 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 62 , 63 , 66)
4. subsequent purchasers with registered titles have locus standi to challenge null/void proceedings. (Para 28 , 48 , 51)

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

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:

S.No.	W.P.No.	W.A.No.	Extent of land and Sy.No.
1.	16927/2008	107/2018	Ac.2.35 guntas in Sy.No.284
2.	17076/2008	111/2018	Ac.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.284
3.	16605/2008	161/2018	Lands in Sy.No.284, 285, 201 to 205 and 361/2

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; and

(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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 25185

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADAbhinand Kumar Shavili, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJSpecial Officer And Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Nampally Hyderabad – AppellantVersusK Jawahar Reddy – RespondentWRIT APPEAL Nos. 107, 111 and 161 of 2018

Proceedings initiated under the Act against agricultural land without service of mandatory notices to interested parties and without taking actual physical possession before the Repeal Act are non-est, void, and stand automatically abated by the Repeal Act.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ
Special Officer And Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Nampally Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
K Jawahar Reddy – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL Nos. 107, 111 and 161 of 2018