Sri Sriramshetty Srinivasa Rao, ... vs Prl Secy, Revenue Deptulc, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 238 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

               WRIT PETITION No.13262 of 2015

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the

respondents in claiming the land of the petitioners admeasuring

Ac.133 guntas in Sy.No.574 of Alwal village, Malkajgiri Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, as excess vacant land computed to the

holding of a dead person in proceedings No.CC.No.G1/13089/76

dated 23.12.2005 as being illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioners claim to have purchased the subject land

under registered sale deed dated 02.12.2004 and that the vendors

of the petitioners acquired title vide proceedings of the Revenue

Divisional Officer in proceedings No.3201/1995 dated 29.12.1995.

The vendors of the petitioners were also issued pattadar pass books

and title deeds. After purchase of the subject land, petitioners were

issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. While so, the

respondents inspected the subject land in the month of December

2015 claiming that the land has been declared surplus under the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the ULC

Act'). Petitioners made an application dated 19.01.2015 under the

Right to Information Act and vide proceedings dated 24.02.2015,

the petitioners were furnished with the impugned proceedings.

3. The petitioners were not aware of the orders passed by the

Special Officer and Competent Authority in C.C.no.G1/13087 to

13092/76, G1/8931 to 8938/76, G1/8920/76, G1/8297, 8928,

8924 and 8926/76 dated 23.12.2005. The original owner, namely,

Ghulam Ahmed, had alienated the agricultural land of Ac.1.33

guntas in Sy.No.574 of Alwal village in favour of the vendors of the

petitioners, who, in turn, had sold the same in favour of the

petitioners. The orders under Sections 8(1) and 8(4) of the ULC Act

were passed behind the back of the petitioners. Thereafter,

notification under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act were

issued without notice to the petitioners. The petitioners had been in

actual and physical possession of the subject land.

4. The Government has erroneously passed orders under

G.O.Ms.No.580 Revenue (UC.II) Department dated 04.05.2005

setting aside the orders of the respondent No.2 in the declarations

dated 30.011996 without issuing notice to the petitioners, who are

interested persons. The revisional jurisdiction was invoked under

Section 34 of the ULC Act suo motu without following the principles

of natural justice. The orders passed under Section 34 of the ULC

Act by issuing G.O.Ms.No.580 dated 04.05.2005 directing the

Special Officer to re-determine the surplus treating all lands as

vacant as on 17.02.1976 are illegal and unsustainable for the

reason that ORC certificates were issued to Gulam Ahmed, original

vendor of the petitioners, only on 04.03.1983 and prior to that the

land stood vested with the Government under Section 3 of the

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Inam Abolition Act, 1955.

5. It is submitted that the declarant, Late Gulam Ahmed, filed

declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act declaring that he has

no vacant land and he is having agricultural land including land in

Sy.No.574. Before re-grant was made by the Inam Tribunal on

04.03.1983 in favour of Gulam Ahmed, the agricultural land cannot

be computed to the holding of Gulam Ahmed taking the appointed

date as 19.02.1976 as directed under G.O.Ms.No.580 dated

04.05.2006. The respondents have created fabricated panchanama

dated 27.04.2006, which was prepared on 27.03.2008 after the

repeal of the Principal Act, when Gulam Ahmed was no more.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the instant

matter is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 05.03.2009

in WP.No.16803 of 2008, filed by the neighbour of the petitioners in

respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.574, 575 and 564 of Alwal Village.

It is further stated that another neighbour of the petitioners,

who had lands in Sy.Nos.573 and 574, challenged the same

proceedings in WP.No.24552 of 2008 and the same was allowed by

order dated 17.03.2011 following the judgment in WP.No.16803 of

2008. In both the aforesaid writ petitions, G.O.Ms.No.580 dated

04.05.2005 whereunder ULC proceedings were reopened was struck

down. The subject lands in WP.No.16803 of 2008 and in the instant

writ petition are covered by declaration of Ghulam Ahmed in

CC.No.G1/13089/76.

7. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government

preferred an appeal, WA.No.28 of 2014, challenging the judgment

in WP.No.16803 of 2008 wherein status quo order dated

15.12.2009 was passed.

8. The judgment dated 05.03.2009 in WP.No.16803 of 2008

was not suspended by the learned Division bench in WA.No.28 of

2014 and as noted above only interim order dated 15.12.2009 was

passed directing both the parties to maintain status quo.

9. Thus, following the judgment dated 05.03.2009 passed in

WP.No.16803 of 2008 and judgment dated 30.10.2009 passed in

WP.No.18093 of 2008, this 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 January 18, 2023 DSK