Gudla Appayamma, Visakhapatnam ... vs Prl. Secretary, Revenue Uci ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4950 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                     W.P.No.22608 of 2016


ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declare the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act, 1976 against the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.50/12 of Maddilapalem Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam have not attained finality for the reason that they have not concluded by taking possession U/s 10 (6) of the Act, which is evident by the report of the 2nd respondent dated 12.10.2007 submitted in pursuance to the directions of this Hon‟ble Court dated 26.07.2007 in W.P.No.13644 of 2007 and consequently direct the respondents to remove the same from the list of Government lands and not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land with absolute rights by the petitioner ...."

This Court has heard Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Revenue

and Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar for the 4th respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute

relates to a piece of property about 600 square meters with two

thatched huts (where petitioner is living) which has not been

taken over as per the procedure under the provisions of the

Urban Land Ceiling Act (for short „the Act‟). He also states that

the Act also been repealed. Learned counsel points out that the

petitioner is the owner of land in Sy.No.50/12. After sale of

certain small bits of land; the petitioner claims to be in

possession and enjoyment of this extent of land. It is also

submitted that the petitioner submitted a declaration without

being aware of its contents due to illiteracy. Apart from that, it

is urged that after filing of the declaration, the statutory steps

which are required to be taken are the draft statement under

section 8(3) of the Act inviting objections and an order thereafter

under section 8(4) of the Act after hearing the declarant.

Learned counsel submits that without following this mandatory

procedure, an order under section 8(4) of the Act, final

notification under 10 (1) and 10(3) of the Act were issued stating

that entire extent of 1266 square metres is surplus land and

vested with the Government. It is also categorically asserted on

a matter of fact that physical possession was not taken over by

the 2nd respondent under section 10 (6) of the Act. Petitioner

claims to be in possession of the property and relies upon an

earlier W.P.No.13644 of 2007, which was filed by her.

Therefore, it is argued that as the statutory requirements under

the provisions of the Act are not complied with and as

possession was also not taken, the petitioner is entitled to a

declaration. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment reported

in T.Muralidhar Rao and another v. State of Andhra

Pradesh, Department of Revenue (UCII), Hyderabad rep., by

its Secretary and another1 in which the learned single Judge

2017 (3) ALT 389

has considered the judgment on the subject about the procedure

under section 8(3) and 8(4) of the Act. In addition, he relies

upon the documents filed with the writ petition to urge that the

petitioner is still in possession of the property. Lastly, he also

relies upon certain judgments, which are enclosed to the reply

affidavit for the same preposition. He also relies upon the

counter affidavit filed by the Urban Development Authority-

respondent No.4, wherein it is clearly mentioned that they were

never put in possession of the property.

In reply to this, learned Government Pleader for Revenue

argues that the statutory procedure was followed and that the

land is vested in the State. He also argues that steps have been

taken to protect the property by the State. Government Pleader

therefore justifies the action taken by the State and argues that

as appropriate statutory procedures were followed and the land

vested with the Government and out of a total extent of 1266

meters, 301 square meters is covered by encroachments.

Possession was also handed over to the 4th respondent as per

G.O.Ms.No.5013 dated 19.12.1980 and actual possession was

also handed over on 21.03.1993. Therefore, he submits that the

Repeal Act does not apply.

Learned standing counsel for respondent No.4 relies upon

the counter affidavit filed and points out that land in

Sy.No.50/12 was neither acquired nor handed over to the Urban

Development Authority.

In these circumstances, the point that arises for

consideration in this writ petition is whether the statutory

procedure under section 8 of the Act has been followed or not

and the consequences thereof. The first judgment relied upon is

T.Muralidhar Rao (1 supra). In this judgment, the point (a)

that fell for consideration is whether the passing of an order

under section 8(4) is of the Act is mandatory to initiate further

steps. After considering the case law on the subject, learned

single Judge clearly held that passing an order under section

8(4) of the Act is mandatory and if it is not so done, all further

subsequent procedures are illegal. Learned single Judge also

relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of

India and other judgments. Ultimately, noticing the Repeal Act

of 1999, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the

proceedings taken in the case is illegal. In addition, the learned

counsel for the petitioner also relied upon judgments reported in

P.Dhana Laxmi v. Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings,

Warangal2, P.Laxmi Kantha Rao v. Governemnt of A.P. and

others3 and Raj Kumar Surana S/o Late C.L.Surana and

another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others4.

These cases clearly support the representations urged by the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

2 2001 (2) ALD 696 3 2015 (3) ALD 248 4 2014 (2) ALD 125

It is also clear that the respondents have not actually

taken possession of the land. A letter dated 20.01.2019

addressed by the Urban Development Authority is filed by the

petitioner. It shows that the land in Sy.No.50/12B of

Maddilapalem is not utilized by VUDA. Land in Sy.No.50/120

also classified as private land by the Town Surveyor of the

GVMC. The letter dated 12.10.2007 by the Special Officer

Urban Land Ceiling to the Government clearly states that the

petitioner is still in possession of 600 square meters with two

thatched huts.

This Court also notices that in the counter affidavit that

has been filed, nothing is mentioned about the orders passed

under section 8(3) and 8(4) of the Act etc. Only the declaration

under section 10 of the Act and other issues are described

without mentioning anything about the procedure prior to the

said notices/declarations. The assertions made by the

petitioner in para 10 of the writ affidavit are not at all answered

in the counter affidavit.

Therefore, both on law and on fact, the petitioner is

entitled to a relief as prayed for, as the mandatory procedure

under Section 8 of the Act was not followed by the State. The

judgments cited clearly apply to the facts of the case.

Therefore, for all the reasons, the writ petition is allowed.

The proceedings initiated under the Act against the land of the

petitioner in Sy.No.50/12 are held to be illegal and contrary to

law. The petitioner is also entitled to an order of protection for

possession of the land in Sy.No.50/12 measuring 600 square

meters, which is the subject matter of the writ petition. As a

corollary, the respondents are directed to remove the land from

the list of Government lands. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand

dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date : 03.08.2022 KLP