THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
I.A.Nos.1 of 2019, 1 of 2021 and 1 and 2 of 2023
In/And
WRIT APPEAL No.1438 of 2009
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned
Government Pleader attached to the office of learned
Advocate General, for the appellants.
Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.
Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel appears on
behalf of Mr. M. Papa Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appears
on behalf of Mr. Ch. Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel
for respondent No.3.
Mr. H. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel appears
on behalf of Mr. N. Mukund Reddy, learned counsel for
the implead petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019.
::2:: CJ & LNAJ
W.A.No.1438 of 2009
Mr. V.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the implead
petitioners in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023.
2. This intra court appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent has been filed against the order dated
05.03.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge by which
W.P.No.16803 of 2008 preferred by respondent Nos.1
and 2 has been allowed and G.O.Ms.No.580, dated
04.05.2005 and the consequential order, dated
23.12.2005 passed by the competent authority under the
provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had been
quashed.
3. In this order, the parties shall be referred to as per
their rankings in the writ petition.
4. Facts
giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the petitioners claim to have purchased the land measuring Acs.5.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.574 and 575 of Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ::3:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009 vide two registered sale deeds dated 29.07.2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question"). As per the petitioners, the original owners of the aforesaid land were one Sri Gulam Mohammed and 19 others. The original owners had filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act.
5. The competent authority under the Act by order dated 30.01.1996 held that the declarants did not hold any land in excess of ceiling limits under the Act. The State Government thereafter exercised suo motu powers under Section 34 of the Act and passed an order on 04.05.2005 by which the order dated 30.01.1996 passed by the competent authority was set aside and the competent authority was directed to determine the surplus land treating the lands to be vacant as on 07.02.1976.
6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the competent authority passed a fresh order dated 23.12.2005 under ::4:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009 Section 8(4) of the Act by which the land measuring 1,75,108 square meters is declared to be in excess of ceiling limit which included the land in question. Thereafter, on 25.02.2006, the notices were issued under Section 10(5) of the Act, followed by a notification dated 28.03.2006 issued under Section 10(6) of the Act.
7. The petitioners had admittedly purchased the land in question after notification under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued. Obviously, no notice of the aforesaid notification taken under the Act was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners thereupon filed W.P.No.16803 of 2008 inter alia on the ground that neither any notice on the proceedings under the Act was issued to their predecessor-in-title nor to them. It was also contended that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question.
8. In W.P.No.16803 of 2008, the petitioners had prayed for the following relief:
::5:: CJ & LNAJ
W.A.No.1438 of 2009
"Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to ULC proceedings in respect of the petitioners property admeasuring Ac.7-38 gts comprising of an extent of Ac.2-28 gts in Sy.No.574 (part) and Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.575 (part), Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.575 (part) & Ac.2.30 gts in Sy.No.564 (part) situated Alwal Village Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District including the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in proceedings G.O.Ms.No.580 dated 4.5.2005 and all the consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent in File No.G1/13089/76 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the said action and the proceedings and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners rights over the said land in any manner in pursuance of the ULC Proceedings conducted by the 1st respondent in file No."
9. The learned Single Judge by order dated 05.03.2009 inter alia held that the power under Section 34 of the Act was exercised at the instance of respondent No.2 and therefore, exercise of powers in the facts and circumstances of the case is bad in law. It was further ::6:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009 held that the order dated 04.05.2005 passed in exercise of suo motu powers under Section 34 of the Act does not bind the petitioners. The learned Single Judge further held that the provisions of the Act were repealed with effect from 27.03.2008. The learned Single Judge noticed the stand taken on behalf of the petitioners and held that in the counter affidavit, the respondents have not specifically taken a stand that the possession of the land in question has been taken. The learned Single Judge, therefore, quashed the order dated 04.05.2005 passed by the State Government under Section 34 of the Act and the consequential order dated 23.12.2005 passed by the competent authority. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises for our consideration.
10. Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the petitioners had no locus to question the order dated 04.05.2005 passed ::7:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009 under Section 34 of the Act and the consequential order dated 23.12.2005, as they have purchased the land in question by two registered sale deeds dated 29.07.2006. It is further submitted that since the petitioners had purchased the land before the orders under the Act were passed, the question of issuing notice to them does not arise. It is therefore urged that the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
11. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Adarsh Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited 1 and State of U.P. and another vs. Ehsan and another 2.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents invited the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned Single Judge and contended 1 (2016) 12 SCC 493 2 2023 SCC Online SC 1331 ::8:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009 that neither any notice was issued to the predecessor-in- title of the petitioners nor to them. It is further submitted that the orders impugned in the writ petition have been passed in violation of the provisions of the Act. It is also submitted that the proceedings were initiated under the Act against a dead person. It is therefore contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order dated 04.05.2005 and the consequential order dated 23.12.2005. It is submitted that the petitioners have locus to maintain the writ petition.
13. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Y. Sri Rama Krishnaiah vs. Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Vijayawada and others 3.
14. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides.
3
1989 (1) ALT 48
::9:: CJ & LNAJ
W.A.No.1438 of 2009
15. Admittedly, the State Government has exercised the power under Section 34 of the Act on 04.05.2005 and thereafter an order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed on 23.12.2005. Subsequently, notice under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued on 31.01.2006 which eventually culminated into notification under Section 10(6) of the Act on 28.03.2006. After the notification under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued, the petitioners have purchased the land in question by two registered sale deeds dated 29.07.2006.
16. The pivotal question which arises in this intra court appeal is about the locus of the petitioners.
17. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Sections 10(3) and 10(4) of the Act, which are reproduced for the facility of the reference.
"10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.-
(3) At any time after the publication of the
notification under sub-section (1) the competent
::10:: CJ & LNAJ
W.A.No.1438 of 2009
authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the Sate Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.
(4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under sub-section (3)--
(i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and
(ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land."
18. Thus, it is evident that during the commencement of the date of publication of notice under Section 10(3) of the Act, no person can transfer any property by sale, ::11:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009 mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land specified in the notification.
19. Section 10(5) of the Act provides for vesting of the land. It is trite law that vesting of land takes place when the land vests absolutely in the State Government. In the instant case, admittedly, the notice under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued on 31.01.2006. Therefore, after 31.01.2006, the vendors of the petitioners had no authority in law to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners on 29.07.2006. The same was clearly hit by Section 10(4) of the Act.
20. In view of the aforementioned reasons, it is evident that the petitioners had no locus to challenge G.O.Ms.No.580, dated 04.05.2005 passed under Section 34 of the Act and the subsequent order, dated 23.12.2005 passed by the competent authority under Section 8(4) of the Act. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
::12:: CJ & LNAJ
W.A.No.1438 of 2009
21. In view of the prayer in the writ petition, we are not inclined to deal with the issue whether or not possession of the land in question was taken by the competent authority and leave the same open to be agitated in an appropriate proceeding.
22. I.A.No.1 of 2019 has been filed by an implead petitioner on the ground that he has purchased a part of the land in question by registered sale deed dated 26.03.2013.
23. I.A.No.1 of 2021 has been filed by an implead petitioner on the ground that he has purchased a part of the land in question by registered sale deed dated 31.08.2013.
24. Since this Court has already held that the petitioners themselves have no locus to question G.O.Ms.No.580, dated 04.05.2005, I.A.Nos.1 of 2019 and 1 of 2021 preferred by the subsequent purchasers during ::13:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009 the pendency of the proceedings before this Court cannot be entertained and the same are accordingly rejected.
25. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 are filed by the persons claiming to be protected tenants.
26. The claim of the protected tenants in this intra court appeal which essentially is confined to examine the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is concerned, the learned Single Judge is confined to examine the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the right, title and interest of the implead petitioners in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 cannot be entertained in this writ appeal.
27. The aforesaid applications are disposed of with liberty to the implead petitioners in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 to take recourse to the remedies available to them in law.
::14:: CJ & LNAJ
W.A.No.1438 of 2009
28. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned order dated 05.03.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16803 of 2008 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is accordingly quashed.
29. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ __________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 03.11.2023 ES