A. Parvathalu 3 Ors. vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. 5 Ors.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1558 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

               WRIT PETITION No.16267 of 2017

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the

respondents No.3 to 5 in treating the petitioners land admeasuring

Ac.1.14 guntas in Sy.No.61 and Ac.1.35 guntas in Sy.No.68/1 of

Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as

surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,

1976 (for short 'the ULC Act') as illegal and arbitrary and violative

of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. It is claimed by the petitioners that their ancestors owned

and possessed large extents of land in Sy.Nos.61/2, 68/1, 649/3

and 657/2 of Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal. After sale of land to

third parties from time to time, the petitioners were left with the

subject land. The petitioners had been in joint cultivation and

enjoyment of the land and the same is evident from the pahanies.

The respondent No.5 visited the property of the petitioner on

20.04.2017 and attempted to erect a board in the property

indicating that it is a Government ceiling surplus land and on

22.04.2017, the respondent No.5 threatened that the petitioner will

be dispossessed from the land.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are not parties to any declaration and the respondents

have not issued any notice under Sections 8(1) and 8(4) and

Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act. Learned counsel relied

upon the following judgments in STATE OF GUJARAT v.

GYANABA DILAVARSINH JADEJA1, STATE OF UP v. HARI

RAM2 and RAJ KUMAR SURANA v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.3

4. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment contended that

the writ petitioners and widow of Late Alladi Chittari filed

declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act in CC.No.G/236/87.

Total extent of land held by the declarants was computed at

70314.17 sq. meters within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration

and they were allowed to retain 1000 sq. meters each under

Section 4(1)(b) of the ULC Act and the remaining extent of

65,314.17 sq. meters of Kapra village was provisionally declared as

ceiling surplus by order dated 22.03.1988. Draft order under

Section 8(1) of the ULC Act was prepared on 11.04.1988 and

served on the declarants. The declarants did not attend personal

hearing on several occasions. On 26.11.1988, declarants were

present before the Special Officer and Competent Authority and

submitted that they have not filed declarations and they denied to

(2013) 11 SCC 486

(2013) 4 SCC 280

2014 (2) ALD 125

have put thumb impression as shown in the declarations.

The enquiry officer has been directed to serve final orders under

Section 8(4) of the ULC Act to the declarants. After complying with

the procedure under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act, notice

under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act dated 16.11.2006 was issued to

the declarants to surrender possession of the land to the Deputy

Tahsildar, ULC, within 30 days. As the declarants failed to deliver

possession of the land, proceedings under Section 10(6) of the ULC

Act were issued to the enquiry officer to take possession of the

land.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily argued that the

there is no proof of service of notice to the declarants or family

members under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment was requested

to produce the record and accordingly, record was furnished to the

Court.

7. I have perused the record. The original record contains

notices prepared under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act.

The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that mandatory procedure under Rule 5(2) of the Rules for service

of notice through registered post has not been complied with.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that notice

under Section 10(5) and order under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act

was not served on the petitioners or declarants is not rebutted by

the learned Government Pleader. It is seen from the record that

notices have been prepared in the name of the petitioners in

CC.No.G1/236 to 240/87, all dated 16.11.2006. But there is no

proof of service of notices on the declarants. So also there is no

proof of service of order dated 12.03.2007 under Section 10(6) of

the ULC Act on the declarants. The name of the enquiry officer in

Section 10(6) order is kept blank and it appears Section 10(6)

notices were not even dispatched. Thus, mandatory requirement of

service of notice under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act has

not been complied with and possession allegedly taken on

21.08.2007 is void, as it is not in accordance with law. On coming

into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999,

in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.03.2008,

the ULC proceedings are abated and the lands of the petitioners are

saved by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, as possession of the

subject lands is not taken in accordance with law.

In view of the above observations, the writ petition is

allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J April 10, 2023/DSK