Telangana High Court
Smt.Nirmala K.Lahoti vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By ... on 23 April, 2025
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.15746 and 15807 of 2008
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Petition No.15746 of 2008, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Procgs. No.E1/9131/76 and E1/9132/76 dated 06-03-2006 under Section 10(6) of the Act in Sy.No.129/55 of Shaikpet Village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, issued in the name of Sri Sardar Balwanth Singh & others as illegal, null and void...."
3. Writ Petition No.15807 of 2008, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Procgs.No.E1/9131/76 and E1/9132/76 dated 06-03-2006 under Section 10(6) of the Act in Sy.No.129/55 of Shaikpet Village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, issued in the name of Sri Sardar Balwanth Singh & others as illegal, null and void...."
4. Writ Petition No.15746 of 2008 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lis in these two cases.
2
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
6. It is stated that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have purchased open lands admeasuring 434 sq.yards and 800 sq.yards, respectively in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) part of T.S.Nos.2, 3 & 4, Ward No.11, Block 'D', situated at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4788 and 4798 of 2005 dated 27.07.2005 from their vendors i.e, Sayed Ale Hassan and 12 others (legal heirs of Syed Abdul Khader Saheb). It is further stated that originally, the petitioners vendors father-Syed Shah Abdul Khader, was the pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.3.26 gts in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) situated at Shaikpet and the said land was assigned new Survey numbers under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 vide T.S.Nos.2 to 57 Block D, Ward No.11, Shaikpet, and the land admeasuring 2246 sq.mtrs which falls in TS.No.4, Block D, Ward No.11, was recorded as vacant land in possession of Syed Abdul Khader Saheb. It is the case of the petitioners that the original owner made an application for construction and the District Collector vide Letter No.F4/9865/82 has granted NOC dated 19.01.1983 for the lands in Sy.No.129/55 as patta land. It is stated that after commencement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "ULC Act"), one Balwanth Singh and Sardar Devender Singh have filed statements in 3 Form-I under Section 6(1) of the Act, declaring certain properties held by them in Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration viz., Premises bearing No.5-1-318, admeasuring 106.59 sq.mtrs, situated at Gowliguda, Premises bearing No.14-11-805/1 to 805/7 admeasuring 123.18 sq.mtrs situated at Shah Inayath Gunj, land admeasuring 12,809.05 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village, Banjara Hills, Premises bearing No.8-2-1/B admeasuring 555.11 sq.mtrs, situated at Punjagutta. It is further case of the petitioners that as per the enquiry report, out of the total land admeasuring 3500 sq.yards held by Balwanth Singh in Sy.No.129/55, an extent of 2125.00 sq.yards was sold to Sardar Prahlad Singh on 24.12.1965, leaving the balance land to an extent of 1375 sq.yards. It is stated that declarant Balwanth Singh purchased another land admeasuring 14020 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 on 27.07.1966. The entire area held by the declarant is 14020 sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards i.e, 15395 sq.yards (12871 sq.mtrs). Acting on the said enquiry report, the respondent No.2 has issued proceedings No.E1/9131 and 9132/2004 dated 30.10.2004 stating that after verification of the draft statement under Section 8(1) and notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, determined the surplus area to an extent of 11,871 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 (deducted land to an extent of 1,000 sq.mtrs under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act) and directed the declarant to file objections within 30 days. It is further 4 case of the petitioners that the declarant Balwanth Singh while filing draft statement in Form-I under Section 6(1) of the Act, in CC No.E/9131/1976 has categorically mentioned that the land in Sy.No.129/55 is under dispute. It is stated that the declarations have been finalized based on the entries in the revenue records and Town Survey Land Records (TSLR), as well as the recitals in the sale deeds under which the declarant claimed to have purchased the lands in Sy.No.129/55. However, the said sale deeds were already held to be invalid in law, as per the judgment rendered in Prahlad Singh vs. Syed Ali Musa Raza and others 1 wherein the title of the declarant was specifically negatived. It is further case of the petitioners that without taking into consideration of the said facts, the respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.E1/9131/1976 and E1/9132/1976 declared the land to an extent of 11,871 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 as excess land including the schedule property owned by the petitioners in Sy.No.129/55 computing the said land on the declaration of the Balwanth Singh.
7. It is further case of the petitioners that the land in Sy.No.129/55 to an extent of Ac.3-26 gts is grabbed by Sardar Balwanth Singh and Sardar Prahlad Singh by constructing houses, which were assessed to the Municipal numbers. Questioning the 1 1997 (3) ALT 562 5 said action of the declarants, it is stated that the vendors of the petitioners instituted a suit vide O.S.No.331/1980 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking to grant decree of possession of the land admeasuring 2125 sq.yards. It is stated that the said suit was decreed on 15.01.1983 and questioning the same, an appeal vide CCCA No.70 of 1983 came to be filed by Sardar Prahlad Singh against the petitioners vendors and the same was dismissed on 27.02.1997. Aggrieved by the dismissal of said appeal, the Sardar Prtahlad Singh filed LPA No.23 of 1997 on the file of this Court and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 28.02.2002. The legal heirs of Sardar Prahlad Singh filed S.L.P (Civil) No.23359 of 2002 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.11.2002.
8. It is stated that seeking implementation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.331/1980, Syed Ali Musa Rasa, and others (legal heirs of the original pattadar i.e, Syed Abbul Khader Saheb) filed E.P.No.67 of 2003 and the same was allowed vide order dated 29.03.2004 directing the judgment debtors to handover the possession and demolish the existing structures and in pursuance of the same, the possession was delivered to petitioners vendors on 18.02.2005. Questioning the same, a revision vide Civil Revision Petition No.2526 of 2004 was filed and the same was dismissed by 6 this Court vide order dated 25.04.2005. It is stated that Sardar Prahlad Singh, filed E.A.No.13 of 2005 and the same was dismissed on 12.04.2005. Questioning the same, the legal heirs of Prahlad Singh filed CRP No.2699 of 2005 and the same was dismissed on 22.06.2005 as infructuous. It is stated that after the litigation attained finality, the petitioners purchased the subject property of the writ petition under registered sale deeds vide document Nos.4788 and 4798 of 2005 dated 27.07.2005 from the legal heirs of the original pattadar Syed Abdul Khader Saheb. Thus the petitioners are claiming that they are interested in the subject lands and effected by the impugned proceedings dated 06.03.2006 issued by the respondent No.2. Hence the writ petition.
9. On 22.07.2008, this Court while admitting the writ petition, granted interim order in W.P.M.P.No.20399 of 2008 directing both the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date.
10. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter affidavit on 08.09.2010 inter alia stating that the respondent No.2 has declared Sardar Balwanth Singh (died per L.Rs Smt Tripati Kaur and others) as surplus land holders to an extent of 11,871 Sq.Mts. in Sy.No.129/55 and issued orders under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, vide proceedings Nos.E1/9131/76 and E1/9132/76, dt.8-03-2006 directing the Enquiry Officer to take over possession of surplus land 7 and hand over the same to the jurisdiction officer i.e, respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal. Accordingly the Enquiry Officer has taken over possession of the land covered by structures and open land and handed over the same to the Deputy Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, under cover of panchanama on 07-05-2008 and since then the said land is in the possession of Government.
11. The respondent No.2 filed W.V.M.P.No.4894 of 2010 on 23.09.2010 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 22.07.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.20399 of 2008. This Court vide order dated 15.11.2010 dismissed the said application, which reads as follows:
"The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of an extent of 434 sq. yds., and 800 sq. yds., of land situated in Sy.No.129/55 (revised Sy.No.165) part of TS Nos.2, 3 & 4, Ward No.11, Block 'D', Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad. They claim to have purchased the said land from the original owners, viz., Syed Ale Hassan and 12 others, under a registered sale deed dated 27.07.2005 vide document Nos.4788 of 2005 & 4798 of 2005. Earlier the title in respect of the said land was stated to have been set up by one Sardar Balwanth Singh, who allegedly lost the title suit against the vendors of the writ petitioners. The impugned notice dated 6.03.2006 issued under Section 10 (5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') shows that enquiry was conducted with reference to the holding of Sardar Balwanth Singh. It is the case of the petitioners that the said person having lost his title has nothing to do with the proceedings initiated under the Act and as such the petitioners cannot claim to have held excess land.
This Court while admitting the writ petition by order dated 22.07.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.20399 of 2008 directed the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day.
The petitioners claim that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land while the learned Government Pleader submits that the surplus land was taken possession by the enquiry officer pursuant to the notice dated 6.03.2006, on 7.05.2008 and therefore submits that the status quo orders need not be continued.8
Prima facie, it appears that the proceedings under the Act were initiated with reference to the claim of Sardar Balwanth Singh, who does not appear to have anything to do with the aforesaid land of the petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed, it has not been stated in what manner the possession was taken over and from whom. It does not even refer as to whether the possession was taken over under a cover of any panchanama. Having regard to the same, I am not inclined to vacate the interim orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.20399 of 2008, dated 22.07.2008. Accordingly, the interim order is made absolute and the W.V.M.P. is dismissed."
12. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed additional counter affidavit on 29.10.2021 inter alia stating that Sardar Balwanth Singh & Sardar Devdar Singh filed statements in Form-I under Section 6(1) of ULC Act, declaring the properties held by him viz., 1) H.No.5-1-318, admeasuring 106.59 sq.mtrs situated at Gowliga, 2) 14-11-805/1 to 805/7 admeasuring 123.18 sq.mtrs situated at Shah Inayath Gunj,
3) land admeasuring 12809.05 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) situated at Banjara Hills and 4) H.No.8-2-1/B admeasuring 555.11 sq.mtrs situated at Panjagutta. It is further stated that declarant Balwanth Singh expired on 03.02.2004 leaving behind Smt. Tripat Kaur and four others as L.Rs. It is also stated that total land held by declarants is 14,083.92 sq.mtrs out of which an extent of 1,212.92 sq.mtrs is protected under Section 4(11) of Principal Act. The vacant land held by the declarant is 12,871 Sq.Mtrs, of which he is entitled to hold an extent of 1,000 Sq.Mtrs only under Section 4(1)(B) of the ULC Act, 1976, and thus an extent of 11,871 Sq.Mtrs was declared as surplus and a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act was issued vide proceedings dated 9 30.10.2004. The legal heirs of the deceased declarant filed a letter dated 06.11.2004 expressing no objection to the proposed surplus land, leading to confirmation of the draft statement under Sections 8(4) and final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act vide proceedings dated 10.11.2004. The declaration under Section 10(1) was issued on 07.01.2005 and published in Gazette No.16 dated 20.01.2005. The final declaration under Section 10(3) was issued and published in Gazette No.27 dated 01.02.20005. Subsequently, notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 16.01.2006 directing the declarants to surrender the surplus land. Upon failure to comply, proceedings under Section 10(6) were initiated on 06.03.2006 and the Enquiry Officer took possession of the land on 16.03.2006, which was formally handed over to the Deputy Tahsildar, Shaikpet, under a cover of Panchanama on 07.05.2008. Since then, the land is in possession of the Government. It is further stated that the subject land, forming part of the declarant's Form-I under Section 6(1), is part of the total declared extent of 14,083.92 Sq.Mtrs, out of which 1,212.92 Sq.Mtrs was protected under Section 4(11), leaving 12,871 Sq.Mtrs as vacant land. It is further stated that during the entire ULC proceedings, neither the petitioners nor their vendors, filed any declaration or objections. The sale deeds relied upon by the petitioners, bearing document Nos.4788 and 4798 of 2005 dated 27.07.2005, were executed during the operation of the ULC Act, 10 1976 and without obtaining permission under Section 26, thereby rendering the transactions void under Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the ULC Act. The petitioners thus have no locus standi to assail the ULC proceedings, which were concluded lawfully and possession was taken over prior to the enactment of the Repeal Act, 1999 and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
13. Considered the submissions of Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, for Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
14. Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.15746 of 2008 and petitioner in W.P.No.15807 of 2008 (mother of petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.15746 of 2008) have purchased open lands admeasuring 434 sq.yards, 800 sq.yards and 1190 sq.yards respectively, in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) part of T.S.Nos.2, 3 & 4, Ward No.11, Block 'D', situated at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4788/2005, 4798/2005 and 4797/2005 dated 27.07.2005 from their vendors i.e, Sayed Ale Hassan and 12 others (legal heirs of Syed Abdul Khader Saheb) and their predecessor-in-interest, who were absolute owners over the said property. It is submitted that when the disputes arose 11 with regard to the title over the property belonging to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, a suit vide O.S.No.331 of 1980 was instituted on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.1983 and the matter was carried to this Court vide CCCA No.70 of 1983 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.02.2007 and thereafter, an appeal vide LPA No.23/1997 was filed and the same was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 28.02.2002. Challenging the same, S.L.P (C) No.23359 of 2002 was filed and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.12.2002 and the litigation attained finality. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Enquiry Officer of the office of respondent No.2 in his report dated 13.09.2004 stated that the declarant-Balwanth Singh purchased the land to an extent of 3500 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village from Agaiah S/o.Pochaiah vide document No.1545/1965 dated 25.10.1965 and out of the said land, an extent of 2125 sq.yards was disposed of by the declarant to Sardar Prahlad Singh vide document No.3053/65 dated 24.12.1965 leaving the balance land to an extent of 1375 sq.yards is in possession of Balwanth Singh. Subsequently, the declarant further purchased land admeasuring 14020 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 on 27.07.1966 and the area covered by structures of third parties, roads and some open land. Hence the entire area 12 allegedly held by the declarant is 14,020 sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards = 15,395 sq.yards (12,871 sq.mtrs). While deducting the land to an extent of 1000 sq.mtrs under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, it was declared that the declarant holds excess land to an extent of 11,871.00 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village in excess of ceiling limit. It is contended that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the statutory stipulations and mechanically conducted the enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry report was confirmed by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings Nos.E1/9131/2004 and E1/9132/2004 dated 30.10.2004. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 06.03.2006 under Section 10(6) of ULC Act declaring land admeasuring 11,871 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 allegedly owned by Balwant Singh as excess land. It is contended that the property owned by the petitioners in Sy.No.129/55 was erroneously declared as excess land in the proceedings. It is further contended that in the impugned proceedings, it was clearly stated that the area is covered by structures of third parties, roads and some open lands, which implies that the declarant is not in possession of the property as on the date of conducting enquiry by the Enquiry Officer and the excess land declared by the respondent No.2 is different and distinct from the property purchased by the petitioners. It is further contended that as per the judgment in O.S.No.331/1980, it was declared that 13 the Sardar Balwanth Singh and Sardar Prahlad Singh had no right over the property admeasuring 2125 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 and findings recorded by the trial Court has attained finality with the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No.23359 of 2002. It is further contended that the respondents having found that the petitioner is in possession of the property, did not issue any notice as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 (for short "ULC Rules") to the affected parties who are in possession of the property. Due to non-following of the mandatory procedure, any statement prepared under Section 10 of the ULC Act and publication of the notification and vesting of the land under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act is invalid. Thus the learned Senior Counsel prayed this Court to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned proceedings.
15. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents contended that after verification of the declaration filed under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, a draft notification under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act was issued vide Proceedings dated 30.10.2004 and as no objections were received, a final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act was prepared on 10.11.2004 and thereafter, proceedings under Section 10(1) was issued on 07.01.2004 and published in Gazette No.16 dated 14 20.01.2005. Subsequently declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, was issued on 01.02.2005 and the same was published in Gazette No.27 dated 01.02.2005 and thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 16.01.2006 to the legal heirs of declarant i.e, Late Balwant Singh to surrender the surplus land to an extent of 11871 sq.mtrs within the stipulated period and when possession was not surrendered, Section 10(6) proceedings were issued on 06.03.2006 and possession was taken over under cover of panchanama on 07.05.2008. The learned Government Pleader placing reliance on Section 10(3) of ULC Act, submitted that after publication of declaration under Section 10(3) of ULC Act, the excess land vested with the Government, absolutely free from all encumbrances. It is further submitted that in the absence of filing any objections to the proceedings under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, neither the petitioners nor their vendors are entitled to question the proceedings under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act or Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, which are consequential. Since the possession was taken prior to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short "Repeal Act, 1999") came into force, neither the petitioners nor their vendors or the declarants are entitled for benefit under Section 3 of Repeal Act, 1999 adopted by the-then State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 27.03.2008 vide G.O.Ms.No.603 (Revenue) (UCI) Department dated 22.04.2008. Thus the writ petitions filed by 15 the petitioners are misconceived and prayed for dismissal of the same.
16. In reply to the above submissions,, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would maintain that as per the proceedings dated 30.10.2004, the third parties are in possession of the excess land. It is further submitted that in implementation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.331/1980, the Executing Court in E.P.No.67 of 2003 has delivered the possession to the petitioners vendors on 18.06.2005. It is also submitted that the respondents have not placed any record before this Court furnishing the particulars of the alleged panchanama. Since there is no proof, the contention of the respondents that they have taken physical possession of subject property cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that mere vesting of the land under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act does not confer any right to claim de facto possession of the vacant land. It is further contended that since the State has failed to establish that possession of the vacant land was either voluntarily surrendered under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act or taken by way of forcible dispossession under Section 10(6), it is estopped from asserting any right over the subject property. Consequently, the landowner is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. It is further contended that it is settled preposition of law that 16 mere paper possession is not sufficient to vest the land in the State and the same shall not divest the petitioners right and prayed for allowing the writ petitions.
17. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the respective counsel, it is necessary to examine some of the relevant provisions of the ULC Act, 1976. Section 2 of the ULC Act, deals with definitions and some of the definitions are extracted hereunder.
(i) "person" includes an individual, a family, a firm, a company, or an association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not;
(l) "to hold" with its grammatical variations, in relation to any vacant land means--
(i) to own such land; or
(ii) to possess such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or under an irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire-purchase agreement or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the said capacity or capacities.
Explanation.--Where the same vacant land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in another capacity, then, for the purposes of this Act, such land shall be deemed to be held by both such persons.
18. Further, Section 3 of the Act, states that except as otherwise provided in the Act, on and from the commencement of the Act, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which the Act applies under sub- section (2) of Section 1. Section 4 of the Act prescribes Ceiling limit of every person. Section 6 of the Act, which deals with persons 17 holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit to file statement, reads as under:
"Section 6 - Persons holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit to file statement (1) Every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of this Act shall, within such period as may be prescribed, file a statement before the competent authority having jurisdiction specifying the location, extent, value and such other particulars as may be prescribed of all vacant lands and of any other land on which there is a building, whether or not with a dwelling unit therein held by him (including the nature of his right, title or interest therein) and also specifying the vacant lands within the ceiling limit which he desires to retain :
Provided that in relation to any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "Every person who hold vacant land in excess of ceiling limit at the commencement of this Act", the words, figures and letters "Every person which vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit on or after the 17th day of February, 1975 and before the commencement of this Act and every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at such commencement" had been substituted."
19. A conjoint reading of the definition of "person" under Section 2(i) of the ULC Act, 1976 and the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act makes it clear that any person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit must file a statement before the competent authority specifying the location, extent, and particulars of such lands, including the nature of the right or interest therein. The expression "person" includes individuals and entities holding such land in various legal capacities, including as owner, tenant, mortgagee, under irrevocable power of attorney, or under a hire-purchase agreement. In the present case, the declarants, while filing the statement in Form-I have categorically mentioned in Annexure-A that 18 the land in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village as "the land is under dispute in High Court". In the Proceedings dated 30.10.2004, it is stated that out of 3500 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village purchased from Agaiah S/o.Pochaiah vide document No.1545/1965 dated 25.10.1965, an extent of 2125 sq.yards was disposed of by the declarant to Sardar Prahlad Singh vide document No.3053/65 dated 24.12.1965 leaving the balance land to an extent of 1375 sq.yards in possession of Balwanth Singh. Further, the declarant Balwanth Singh has purchased land to an extent of 14020 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 on 27.07.1966 and the area is covered by structures of third parties, roads and some open land. Hence the entire area held by the declarant i.e, 14020 sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards = 15395 sq.yards (12871 sq.mtrs). Acting on the enquiry report, the respondent No.2 has issued proceedings Nos.E1/9131 and 9132/2004 dated 30.10.2004 under section 8(1) of the Act observing that the total land held by the declarant is 14083.92 sq.mtrs out of which an extent of 1212.92 sq.mtrs is protected under Section 4(11) of the Act and the vacant land held by the declarant is 12,871.00 sq.mtrs, out of which he is entitled to held 1,000 sq.mtrs under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Thus it was declared that the declarant holds the land to an extent of 11871.00 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.165 (old), 129/55 (new) of Shaikpet Village in excess of ceiling limit. The case of the petitioners is that 19 their vendors and their predecessor-in-interest Syed Abdul Khader Saheb is the pattadar of the land in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) to an extent of Ac.3.26 gts and his name was recorded in the revenue records and the said Sy.No.129/55 was assigned new survey number under the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. When the disputes arose with regard to the right and title over the land admeasuring 2125 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55, a suit for possession vide O.S.No.331/1980 was instituted by the petitioners vendors claiming absolute ownership and after contest, the said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 15.01.1983. Aggrieved by the same, Sardar Prahlad Singh filed CCCA No.70 of 1983 on the file of this Court and after contest, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.02.1997. Challenging the same, LPA No.23 of 1997 was preferred and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 28.02.2022, wherein it was observed that Prahlad Singh, who claims to have purchased the property from the Sardar Balwant Singh (the declarant) is not title holder of the land in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet village and consequently, declared that the petitioners vendors and their predecessors-in-interest are the absolute owners of the suit schedule land and entitled for delivery of possession. The said findings have attained finality in view of the dismissal of SLP (C) No.23359 of 2002 vide orders dated 20.11.2002. The petitioners vendors also filed E.P.No.67 of 2003 seeking 20 execution of the judgment and decree dated 15.01.1983 passed in O.S.No.331 of 1980. In execution proceedings, the possession of the land claimed by the petitioners i.e, suit schedule property i.e, portion of Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165), to an extent of 2125 sq.yards out of 3500 sq.yards was delivered to the petitioners. The suit was initially decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.1983. The proceedings emanated from the suit have attained finality by delivery of possession to the petitioners vendors. Even before issuance of the notification under Section 10(3) of the Act dated 01.02.2005, the E.P.No.67 of 1993 was allowed on 29.03.2004 for delivery of possession to the petitioners vendors. In pursuance of the orders passed in E.P, the possession of the property was delivered vide panchanama dated 18.06.2005. The respondents acting on the alleged declaration have issued notice under Section 10(5) of the Act on 16.01.2006 for delivery of possession by the declarant who lost the title in civil battle before all the forums. Thereafter, it is stated that Section 10(6) notice was issued on 06.03.2006 and the alleged possession was taken over under cover of panchanama on 07.05.2008. The subject properties claimed by the petitioners were delivered to their vendors much prior to the issuance of the notices under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, in execution proceedings. A careful scrutiny of the declaration order reveals that the declarant is a stranger to the subject properties purchased by the petitioners 21 under registered sale deeds. Therefore, the respondents, while acting upon such a declaration, are not having any power to include the petitioners' lands as part of the declarant's holding or to declare them as surplus under the said proceedings.
20. Further, it is seen from the record that except stating in additional counter affidavit, the respondents have not proved the alleged taking over of possession of subject lands under Section 10(6) of the Act on 07.05.2008. The sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 states that the draft statement shall be served together with the notice referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 8, on the holder of the vacant lands, and all other persons, so far as may be known, who have, or are likely to have, any claim to, or interest in the ownership or possession or both, of the vacant lands by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned. A perusal of the Proceedings Nos.E1/9131 and 9132/2004 dated 30.10.2004 issued by the respondent No.2 would manifest that no notice whatsoever has been issued to the persons interested found to be in possession in pursuance of the orders dated 29.03.2004 in E.P.No.67 of 2003.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. Tahsildar and others 2 observed as follows: 2
2025 INSC 274 22 "41. The propositions of law governing the issue of possession in context with Sections 10(5) and 10(6) respectively of the Act, 1976 read with Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 may be summed up thus:
[1] The Repeal Act, 1999 clearly talks about the possession being taken under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, as the case may be.
[2] It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent authority or the State to take possession strictly as permitted in law.
[3] In case the possession is purported to have been taken under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged to look into whether "taking of such possession" is valid or invalidated on any of the considerations in law.
[4] The possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only.
[5] The mere vesting of "land declared surplus" under the Act without resuming "de facto possession" is of no consequence and the land holder is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.
[6] The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 respectively is mandatory. Although the word "may" has been used therein, yet the word "may" in both the sub-sections should be understood as "shall" because a Court is obliged to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from the failure to implement the requirement.
[7] The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18th March 1999.
[8] The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10."
22. In State of U.P vs. Hari Ram 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as follows:
"39. The mere vesting of the land under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. State has to establish that 3 AIR 2013 SC 1793 23 there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under Sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under Sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the Respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act."
23. "Any person" as defined under the ULC Act for filing declaration under Section 6, has to be read in conjunction with the holding of the vacant land, who owns land or possess as such land as owner or as a tenant or as a mortgagee or under any irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire-purchase agreement or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the said capacity or capacities. Admittedly, in the instant case, while filing declaration Late Sardar Balwanth Singh stated that "the land is under dispute". Further, in the Proceedings dated 30.10.2004, it was recorded that the declarant Sardar Balwanth Singh disposed of an extent of 2125 sq.yards in favour of Sardar Prahlad Singh vide registered sale deed vide document No.3053/65 dated 24.12.1965 leaving the balance land to an extent of 1375 sq.yards in possession of Balwanth Singh. It was also recorded that subsequently, the declarant purchased land admeasuring 14020 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 on 27.07.1966 and the area covered by structures of third parties, roads and some open land. Hence the entire area allegedly held by the declarant is 14020 24 sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards = 15395 sq.yards (12871 sq.mtrs). While deducting the land to an extent of 1000 sq.mtrs under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, it was declared that the declarant holds land to an extent of 11,871.00 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village in excess of ceiling limit. It may be noted that the respondent No.2 while computing the holding of the declarant has excluded the land admeasuring 2125 sq.yards said to have been sold by the declarant Balwanth Singh to Sardar Prahlad Singh vide document No.3053/65 dated 24.12.1965 leaving the balance of 1375 sq.yards which was in possession of Balwanth Singh. Further, the Sardar Balwanth Singh and Sardar Prahlad Singh were declared as not title holders over the land to an extent of 2125 sq.yards and the petitioners vendors rights have been confirmed vide judgment and decree in O.S.No.331 of 1980. The findings recorded in the said judgment were confirmed in CCCA No.70 of 1983 vide judgment dated 27.02.2007. The appeal filed vide LPA No.23/1997 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 28.02.2002. Challenging the same, SLP (C) No.23359 of 2002 was filed and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.12.2002 and the litigation attained finality. The E.P.No.67 of 2003 filed by the petitioners was allowed on 29.03.2004. Thereafter, the property was delivered to the petitioners vendors by the Court Bailiff in E.P.No.67 of 2003 on 18.06.2005. The petitioners have purchased the property under registered sale deeds 25 bearing document Nos.4788/2005, 4798/2005 and 4797/2005 dated 27.07.2005. The respondents except claiming that the properties vested in the State under Section 10(3) of the Act, have not issued any notice to the petitioners or their vendors before taking alleged possession nor made available any record to establish that de facto possession of the subject lands was taken over by following due procedure.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned Proceedings Nos.E1/9131/1976 and E1/9132/1976 dated 06-03-2006 issued under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, in respect of petitioners lands admeasuring 434 sq.yards, 800 sq.yards and 1190 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) part of T.S.Nos.2, 3 & 4, Ward No.11, Block 'D', situated at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, are set aside.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 23.04.2025 scs