Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana And Another vs Y. Chandrasekhara Chowdary And 6 ... on 22 March, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                AND
        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



               WRIT APPEAL No.61 and 62 of 2018
                                AND
             WRIT APPEAL No.731 and 732 of 2019




   COMMON JUDGMENT :         (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)




          All these Writ Appeals are being disposed of as they

   arise out of the common order passed by a learned Single

   Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.20780 and 20781 of 2008,

   dated 28.07.2017.


   2.     While W.A.Nos.731 and 732 of 2019 are filed the

   State, W.A.Nos.61 and 62 of 2018 are preferred by the

   Telangana    State   Industrial    Infrastructure         Corporation

   Limited, in the writ petitions.


   3.     Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue

   appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.731 and 732 of

   2019; Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
                                                    HCJ & AKS, J
                               2              W.A.No.61 of 2018 and batch




appearing for the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure

Corporation Limited, which is the appellant in W.A.Nos.61

and 62 of 2018; Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel

appearing for unofficial respondent Nos.1 and 2 in

W.A.No.61 of 2018; and Sri H. Venugopal, learned counsel

appearing for unofficial respondent Nos.1 to 6 in

W.A.No.731 of 2019.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.A.No.731

of 2019 are discussed hereunder.

5. It has been contended by the appellants that

unofficial respondents have challenged the action of the

respondents in issuing the proceedings in

C.C.No.H1/2672/06 under the provisions of Urban Land

(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter be referred

as "the Land Ceiling Act") in computing the land of

unofficial respondents admeasuring 36,623-54 sq. meters

(Ac.0.91 ½ gts.) in Sy.No.340 of Poppalaguda Village,

Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in suo-motu

proceedings and the consequential allotment of the land HCJ & AKS, J

treating it as surplus in favour of the Telangana State

Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited by issuing

G.O.Ms.No.963, Revenue (UC-I) Department, dated

02.08.2008 and also challenging the action of the

appellants in issuing proceedings in respect of 62,636-87

sq. meters of land in Sy.Nos.340 and 341 of Poppalaguda

Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and

allotting the land by treating it as surplus in favour of the

Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

Limited, vide G.O.Ms.No.963, Revenue (UC-I) Department,

dated 02.08.2008, as arbitrary and illegal. It is contended

by the appellants that a learned Single Judge of this Court

without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the

appellants had allowed both the writ petitions by common

order dated 28.07.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the

appellants have filed the present Writ Appeals.

6. Learned counsel for appellants had contended that

the lands in Sy.Nos.335, 336, 338, 340, 341 and 342,

totally admeasuring Acs.80-25 gts., which was declared as

evacuee property under the provisions of the HCJ & AKS, J

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for brevity

"the Evacuee Property Act") and the Regional Settlement

Commissioner, Bombay, Ministry of Rehabilitation. allotted

the said land to one Mr. Vasudev, S/o. Khemchand, who

was a displaced person, under allotment order dated

23.06.1956, as per the provisions of the Displaced Persons

(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. As unofficial

respondents claiming title through his predecessor in title,

namely Sri Vasudev, who inturn sold the land to one Smt.

A. Kamala Devi, w/o. A. Seetharamaiah and Smt. G.

Manoharama, w/o. G. Viswanatham, vide registered Sale

Deed dated 17.12.1968 and a Certificate under Section 50-

B of the Talangana Land Revenue Act was also issued in

favour of unofficial respondents.

7. It has been further contended by the appellants that

the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.455 (UC-I)

Department, dated 29.07.2002, enabling allotment of

surplus land to the third parties, who are in occupation of

the same and some eight persons, claiming to be in

occupation of the land to an extent of Acs.11-05 gts. in HCJ & AKS, J

Sy.No.341 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, submitted applications seeking

exemption of the said land on the ground that they

purchased the same under the registered sale deeds. Upon

such applications, respondent No.2 took suo-motu

proceedings under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling

Act and issued Notice dated 29.05.2006 to Sri Vasudev,

under Section 6(2) of Urban Land Ceiling Act in respect of

Acs.11-27 gts. of land in Sy.No.341 of Poppalaguda Village,

Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and in

pursuance of the suo-motu proceedings, a report dated

28.08.2006 was submitted to respondent No.2, wherein the

Enquiry Officer by an endorsement dated 17.07.2006

stated that the original Pattadar Sri Vasudev was holding

the extent of land to his entitlement under the provisions of

Land Ceiling Act and basing on the said report, respondent

No.2 passed order dated 09.08.2006 preparing draft

statement holding that Sri Vasudev was holding surplus

land holder in respect of 62,636-87 sq. meters of land in

Sy.Nos.340 and 341 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar HCJ & AKS, J

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, therefore, the appellants

have rightly followed the law and held that the original

pattadar was holding excess land to his entitlement, which

is contrary to the Urban Land Ceiling Act and, therefore,

sought to pass appropriate orders in the Writ Appeals by

setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for unofficial

respondents had contended that the learned Single Judge

has rightly allowed the writ petitions in favour of unofficial

respondents and at the time of initiating suo-motu

proceedings against Sri Vasudev, who was not alive at the

time of initiating suo-motu proceedings, there cannot be

any order against a dead person and the sale deeds

executed in favour of unofficial respondents dates back to

1964 and the appellants, without following the revenue

record, had issued suo-motu proceedings without

appreciating the fact that the original pattadar has already

sold the land in favour of Smt. A. Kamala Devi and Smt. G.

Manoharama by way of registered sale deeds during the

year 1964 and 1968 and that unofficial respondents' HCJ & AKS, J

predecessors have purchased from Smt. A. Kamala Devi

and Smt. G. Manoharama and hence, the learned Single

Judge has rightly allowed the writ petitions in favour of

unofficial respondents as suo-motu proceedings were

initiated by the appellants against a dead person.

9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions

made by the parties, is of the view that the learned Single

Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition holding that the

appellants have initiated suo-motu proceedings against a

dead person by issuing Notice dated 29.05.2006 and has

rightly allowed the writ petitions with the following

observations :

"In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. HARI RAM1 and GAJANAN KAMLYA PATIL V.

ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (ULC)2 , the procedure with regard to dispossession and the effect of Repeal Act was considered. Now the law is well settled that the notice under Section 10(5) as well as 10(6) of the Act should be served on the persons who are in possession as well as on the declarant and in view

(2013) 4 SCC 280

(2014) 12 SCC 523 HCJ & AKS, J

of the said decisions, the alleged taking over of possession on paper without issuing notice to the petitioners is bad in law. There is no dispute that all the proceedings were taken behind the back of the petitioners and in the name of the deceased original owner. In spite of coming to know of the fact of selling away the entire land by the original owner, no effort was made by the second respondent for verifying the purchases, but he passed order merely basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer who stated that the name of the original owner was reflected in the revenue records. At the time when the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force, the land was in peripheral area and benefit of G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 was available to the declarants, if any, but no such provision was made while calculating the land. In a case of suo motu proceedings, the second respondent should have been more careful, but took several proceedings under the Act, without the knowledge of the subsequent purchasers.

Hence, this Court has no doubt with regard to invalidity of the proceedings and, accordingly, all the proceedings emanating from the suo motu proceedings under File in CC.No.H1/2672/06 are quashed and consequently G.O.Ms.No.963, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 02.08.2008, is set aside.

HCJ & AKS, J

Both the Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed."

10. Therefore, having regard to the cogent and convincing

reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in allowing

the writ petitions, while concluding that there cannot be

any proceedings against a dead person, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the same.

11. Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No

order as to costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ