State Of Telangana vs R Kamalakar Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 487 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.613 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr. K.Naresh, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue representing the appellants and

Mr.     E.Madan        Mohan        Rao,      learned        Senior   Counsel

appearing for respondent No.1.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

28.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing

W.P.No.20576 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1.

2.1. It may be mentioned that by the aforesaid order two

writ petitions were disposed of, W.P.No.20576 of 2008 and

W.P.No.23528 of 2012.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed W.P.No.20576 of 2008

seeking the following relief:

To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus

a) declaring the D.O.Lr.No.A4/1724/08 dated 29.04.2008 of the third respondent as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same;

b) to declare that the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, are not applicable to the land of the petitioner admeasuring Acs.13.00 guntas in Sy.No.60 and Ac.3.07 guntas in Sy.No.62 of Chengi Cherla Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. In W.P.No.23528 of 2012 also filed by respondent

No.1, prayer made was to set aside the order dated

07.07.2012 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy

District.

5. The present appeal arises out of the aforesaid

common order dated 28.06.2021 in W.P.No.20576 of 2008.

6. After narrating the relevant facts, learned Single

Judge held as follows:

33) Admittedly, in the present case, the proceedings under Section 8 (4) and the consequential orders issued

under Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the ULC Act are against a dead person and no notice was served on the petitioner herein, who, in fact, is not only an affected party but also interested party. Hence, the proceedings issued under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act dated 27.08.2001 including the alleged panchanama, dated 04.09.2001, after the death of the declarant are void ab initio and non est in the eye of the law.

34) Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.

7. In the hearing today, learned Assistant Government

Pleader submitted that respondent No.2 had filed

W.A.Nos.276 and 278 of 2022 against the aforesaid order

dated 28.06.2021. Therefore, the present appeal should be

tagged with those two appeals.

8. However, learned Senior Counsel representing

respondent No.1 has placed before the Court a copy of the

common judgment and order dated 28.09.2022 passed by

this Court whereby W.A.Nos.276 and 278 of 2022 were

dismissed.

9. We have perused the order dated 28.06.2021 as well

as the order dated 28.09.2022.

9.1. In the order dated 28.09.2022 this Court posed the

question as to whether proceedings under Section 8(4) and

consequential orders under Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5)

of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976,

against a dead person without putting on notice the

affected/interested party would be valid? This question

was answered by this Court by taking the view that in the

absence of the legal heirs, such proceedings would

automatically stand abated. It was held as follows:

19. Point No.2):- Insofar as ULC proceedings are concerned, the vendor of the 1st respondent/petitioner Sri A.Narayana Reddy filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act in the year 1982 showing the subject land as his excess holding and further proceedings under the ULC Act took place even by passing order under Sections 9 and 10 of the ULC Act. On coming to know the same by the 1st respondent/petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Commissioner in the year 2001 seeking to set aside the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act, including the declaration filed by the original owner. It is categorically recorded by the learned Single Judge that in support of his claim he filed copies of old

pattadar pass books and title deeds and also the new pattadar passbooks and title deeds, pahanis for the years 1981-82, 1983-84, 1994-95, which show his physical possession over the subject lands, pahani for the years 1995-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and also reflect his name both in pattadar as well as possession columns. At this juncture, it is to be observed that late A.Narayana Reddy, original owner, died on 07.04.1983 and the same is not disputed by any of the parties. Further, all the subsequent proceedings issued in the name of the original owner and alleged service of notice and panchanama are against the dead person and subsequently all the ULC proceedings were continued without bringing his legal heirs on record. Therefore, the said proceedings are automatically abated without issuing any notice to his legal heirs. Since the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is an interested and affected party and no notice was served on him, hence, the proceedings issued under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act dated 27.08.2001 including the alleged panchanama dated 04.09.2001, after the death of the original owner are void ab initio and non est in the eye of law.

10. That being the position, we see no good reason to

disturb the finding returned by the learned Single Judge as

extracted above.

11. Consequently, writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 31.01.2023 vs