Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Joint Collector (Rb & R) And ... vs M/S Ece Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2023
HC,J & AVSS,J 1
W.A.No.743 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT APPEAL No.743 OF 2023
The Joint Collector (RB & R) and Competent Authority
Urban Land Ceiling,
Visakhapatnam and 3 others
...Appellants
Versus
M/s ECE Industries Ltd.,
Rep. by its : General Manager,
R.Mohan Reddy S/o Penta Reddy, aged 66 years,
Occ:General Manager, O/o ECE Industries Ltd.,
Ashok Marg, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad-500018 and
another
...Respondents
Dt.14.08.2023
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)
Heard Sri Sasibhushan, learned Special Government
Pleader attached to the learned Additional Advocate
General for the appellants and Sri A.Chandra Sekhar,
learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, apart
from perusing the material available on record.
2. Respondents in Writ Petition No.36105 of 2022 are
the appellants in the present Writ Appeal, preferred under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
HC,J & AVSS,J 2
W.A.No.743 of 2023
3. Respondents herein instituted the Writ Petition,
assailing the order of the Joint Collector (RB & R) and C.A.
Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam issued vide
endorsement Rc.No.67/2020, dated 02.12.2020. Subject
property is in Sy.No.66/1 of Marripalem Village,
Visakhapatnam. When the respondent No.2 made an
application with a request to delete the subject land from
the list of prohibited lands under 22A(1)(d), the Joint
Collector vide endorsement, dated 02.12.2020, declined to
consider the said request.
4. The learned single Judge, by way of the endorsement
impugned in the Writ Petition, allowed the Writ Petition,
setting aside the endorsement, dated 02.12.2020, and
directed the respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition to issue
'No Objection certificate' in terms of the endorsement,
dated 05.06.2014, to enable the writ petitioner to deal with
the land in Sy.No.66/1 of Marripalem Village,
Visakhapatnam District.
HC,J & AVSS,J 3
W.A.No.743 of 2023
5. In the above back ground, the present Writ Appeal
has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for
the appellants, contends that the order of the learned
single Judge is highly erroneous, contrary to law besides
being opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions
of the Urban Land Ceiling Act; that, as the second appeal
filed by the original owner in respect of the land in
Sy.No.59/3 of Marripalem is pending and in the event of
the same being decreed, the declarant has to surrender the
alternate land; that in view of the pendency of W.P.No.8176
of 2008, the endorsement impugned in the Writ Petition
cannot be faulted.
7. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for
the respondents that there is no illegality nor there exists
any infirmity in the order impugned in the Writ Appeal;
that the Second Appeal filed by the original owners was
dismissed as the matter stood settled out of Court; that the
subject matter of W.P.No.8176 of 2008 is Sy.No.59/3 of
Marripalem but not Sy.No.66/1 of Marripalem.
HC,J & AVSS,J 4
W.A.No.743 of 2023
8. In the above back ground, now the issues which this
Court is called upon to consider and adjudicate are:
1. Whether the order passed by the learned
single Judge is sustainable and tenable?
2. Whether the questioned order warrants
any interference of this Court under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?
9. It is absolutely not in controversy that when
respondent No.1 made an application, the Special Officer &
Competent Authority, Visakhapatnam vide endorsement
CC.No.3099/76/b2/ dated 05.06.2014 categorically
clarified that certain lands, including the land in
Sy.No.66/1 to 4 of Marripalem, are non-surplus lands.
Obviously, by taking into consideration the said
endorsement, dated 05.06.2014, the learned single Judge
had allowed the Writ Petition.
10. Coming to the civil litigation initiated by the original
owners, it is to be noted that the original owners instituted
O.S.No.516 of 2005 against the writ petitioner No.1-
respondent No.1 herein for eviction and the Court of the II
HC,J & AVSS,J 5
W.A.No.743 of 2023
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam decreed the
suit on 11.04.2007. The respondent No.1 herein preferred
A.S.No.145 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the I
Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the said
appeal stood allowed vide judgement and decree, dated
07.09.2007. Thereafter, S.A.No.1212 of 2007 came to be
preferred and vide order, dated 04.07.2011, the said
Second Appeal stood dismissed on the basis of the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in the
Second Appeal that the matter stood settled out of Court. It
is the categoric case of the writ petitioners that respondent
No.1 purchased the property vide registered sale deed,
dated 06.04.2011, and respondent No.2 purchased the
same from respondent No.1 vide registered sale deed, dated
13.07.2015. It is also pertinent to note that the subject
matter of W.P.No.8176 of 2008 is the land in Sy.No.59/3
but not 66/1 of Marripalem. Therefore, the contentions
contra advanced by the appellants cannot stand for judicial
scrutiny and are liable to be rejected and, accordingly, they
are rejected.
HC,J & AVSS,J 6
W.A.No.743 of 2023
11. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Appeal is dismissed,
with costs of Rs.5000/- payable to the Andhra Pradesh
High Court Advocates' Association, High Court Buildings at
Amaravathi.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
___________________
A V SESHA SAI, J
14th August, 2023.
Tsy
