THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.16267 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents No.3 to 5 in treating the petitioners land admeasuring Ac.1.14 guntas in Sy.No.61 and Ac.1.35 guntas in Sy.No.68/1 of Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the ULC Act') as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. It is claimed by the petitioners that their ancestors owned and possessed large extents of land in Sy.Nos.61/2, 68/1, 649/3 and 657/2 of Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal. After sale of land to third parties from time to time, the petitioners were left with the subject land. The petitioners had been in joint cultivation and enjoyment of the land and the same is evident from the pahanies. The respondent No.5 visited the property of the petitioner on 20.04.2017 and attempted to erect a board in the property indicating that it is a Government ceiling surplus land and on 22.04.2017, the respondent No.5 threatened that the petitioner will be dispossessed from the land.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not parties to any declaration and the respondents have not issued any notice under Sections 8(1) and 8(4) and Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments in STATE OF GUJARAT v. GYANABA DILAVARSINH JADEJA1, STATE OF UP v. HARI RAM2 and RAJ KUMAR SURANA v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.3
4. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment contended that the writ petitioners and widow of Late Alladi Chittari filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act in CC.No.G/236/87. Total extent of land held by the declarants was computed at 70314.17 sq. meters within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and they were allowed to retain 1000 sq. meters each under Section 4(1)(b) of the ULC Act and the remaining extent of 65,314.17 sq. meters of Kapra village was provisionally declared as ceiling surplus by order dated 22.03.1988. Draft order under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act was prepared on 11.04.1988 and served on the declarants. The declarants did not attend personal hearing on several occasions. On 26.11.1988, declarants were present before the Special Officer and Competent Authority and submitted that they have not filed declarations and they denied to 1 (2013) 11 SCC 486 2 (2013) 4 SCC 280 3 2014 (2) ALD 125 3 have put thumb impression as shown in the declarations. The enquiry officer has been directed to serve final orders under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act to the declarants. After complying with the procedure under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act, notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act dated 16.11.2006 was issued to the declarants to surrender possession of the land to the Deputy Tahsildar, ULC, within 30 days. As the declarants failed to deliver possession of the land, proceedings under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act were issued to the enquiry officer to take possession of the land.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily argued that the there is no proof of service of notice to the declarants or family members under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment was requested to produce the record and accordingly, record was furnished to the Court.
7. I have perused the record. The original record contains notices prepared under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that mandatory procedure under Rule 5(2) of the Rules for service of notice through registered post has not been complied with. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that notice 4 under Section 10(5) and order under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act was not served on the petitioners or declarants is not rebutted by the learned Government Pleader. It is seen from the record that notices have been prepared in the name of the petitioners in CC.No.G1/236 to 240/87, all dated 16.11.2006. But there is no proof of service of notices on the declarants. So also there is no proof of service of order dated 12.03.2007 under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act on the declarants. The name of the enquiry officer in Section 10(6) order is kept blank and it appears Section 10(6) notices were not even dispatched. Thus, mandatory requirement of service of notice under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act has not been complied with and possession allegedly taken on 21.08.2007 is void, as it is not in accordance with law. On coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999, in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.03.2008, the ULC proceedings are abated and the lands of the petitioners are saved by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, as possession of the subject lands is not taken in accordance with law.
In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J April 10, 2023/DSK