IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WP.No.3355 of 2006 Dt. 09.04.2026 Between:

Kuppili Sriram …. Petitioner and The State of A.P. rep. by Prl. Secretary to Revenue(Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & seven others. …Respondents

O R D E R:

1. The instant writ petition has been filed to declare the action of respondents No.2 & 3 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the statutory provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC Act’) and in view of general exemption contemplated by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.455 Rev.Uc-I Dept., dt.29.07.2002, and to further direct the respondents No.1 & 2 to pass orders regularizing the plots of the petitioners No.13 and 14 in survey No.76 admeasuring 200 sq. yards situated at Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by receiving the compensation in terms of the said GO.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner purchased residential plots bearing No.13 & 14 in survey No.76 admeasuring 200 sq. yards situated at Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through a registered sale deed bearing No.480/1990, executed on 12.01.1990, by Sri Nimmala Narahari, S/o Sri Late N.Veeraiah and that since the said land is located in the peripheral area of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, the same is exempted from the provisions of Chapter-III as per the automatic exemption available to the said land, in view of G.O.Ms.No.733, dt.31.10.1998, and despite this, the 2^nd respondent erroneously included the petitioners’ plots in the declaration made in CC No. H/4/83 of Mr. Abdul Khadhar, calculating the total extent of Survey Nos. 70 to 76 as 3665.60 sq. meters, and issued orders under Sections 4(1), 9, 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), and 10(6) of the ULC Act, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, thereby treating his plots as part of the excess land determined and proposing the same for auction through the 3rd respondent.

3. The petitioner further asserted that while he had purchased the said land vide registered sale deed in 1990, the authorities have taken possession of the total land under Section 10(6) in

2001, contrary to his ownership rights and, even as per the declaration of one Mr.Abdul Khadhar and the subsequent proceedings under Section 10(6), since the land is vested with the Government as ceiling surplus land, the petitioner is entitled to seek regularization of the said land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.455, Rev.Uc-I, Dept., dt.29.07.2002, as in view of the general exemption contained therein, even all the encroachers of the excess lands determined in the declarations of the land owners are entitled to seek exemption.

4. It is further contended that the computation of the 2^nd respondent and subsequent handing over of the land to the 3rd respondent was done merely “on paper,” and the petitioner became aware of the proposed auction on 22.02.2006, only on 20.02.2006, i.e., two days before, and aggrieved by these actions, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. The 3^rd respondent-HUDA filed counter stating that the land in Sy.No.76/2, measuring 3665.60 sq. meters in Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was lawfully allotted and handed over to HUDA by the revenue Authorities through a panchanama, dt.24.02.2001, following the directions of the District Collector, and upon taking possession, the land was developed and scheduled for disposal through public auctions in accordance with Government instructions for mobilizing funds for public amenities and developmental activities. The initial auctions held on 10.12.2001 and 28.05.2002 remained unsuccessful, and a subsequent auction on 22.02.2006 could not be confirmed in favour of the highest bidder, M/s. Prajay Engineers Syndicate Ltd., due to administrative reasons.

6. The 3^rd respondent further stated that the said unofficial respondents are no wa