The Special Officer And Competent ... vs Heritage Estate And Holdings Rep ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3555 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                         AND
  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY


     I.A.Nos.1 of 2019, 1 of 2021 and 1 and 2 of 2023
                          In/And
              WRIT APPEAL No.1438 of 2009

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

     Mr.    Parsa    Ananth     Nageshwar       Rao,   learned

Government Pleader attached to the office of learned

Advocate General, for the appellants.

     Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel for

respondent No.1.

     Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel appears on

behalf of Mr. M. Papa Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

     Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appears

on behalf of Mr. Ch. Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel

for respondent No.3.

     Mr. H. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel appears

on behalf of Mr. N. Mukund Reddy, learned counsel for

the implead petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019.
                             ::2::                        CJ & LNAJ
                                                 W.A.No.1438 of 2009




     Mr. V.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the implead

petitioners in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023.


2.   This intra court appeal under Clause 15 of the

Letters Patent has been filed against the order dated

05.03.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge by which

W.P.No.16803 of 2008 preferred by respondent Nos.1

and 2 has been allowed and G.O.Ms.No.580, dated

04.05.2005    and    the    consequential     order,       dated

23.12.2005 passed by the competent authority under the

provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had been

quashed.


3.   In this order, the parties shall be referred to as per

their rankings in the writ petition.


4.   Facts

giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are that the petitioners claim to have purchased the land

measuring Acs.5.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.574 and 575 of

Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ::3:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009

vide two registered sale deeds dated 29.07.2006

(hereinafter referred to as "the land in question"). As per

the petitioners, the original owners of the aforesaid land

were one Sri Gulam Mohammed and 19 others. The

original owners had filed a declaration under Section 6(1)

of the Act.

5. The competent authority under the Act by order

dated 30.01.1996 held that the declarants did not hold

any land in excess of ceiling limits under the Act. The

State Government thereafter exercised suo motu powers

under Section 34 of the Act and passed an order on

04.05.2005 by which the order dated 30.01.1996 passed

by the competent authority was set aside and the

competent authority was directed to determine the

surplus land treating the lands to be vacant as on

07.02.1976.

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the competent

authority passed a fresh order dated 23.12.2005 under ::4:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009

Section 8(4) of the Act by which the land measuring

1,75,108 square meters is declared to be in excess of

ceiling limit which included the land in question.

Thereafter, on 25.02.2006, the notices were issued under

Section 10(5) of the Act, followed by a notification dated

28.03.2006 issued under Section 10(6) of the Act.

7. The petitioners had admittedly purchased the land

in question after notification under Section 10(6) of the

Act was issued. Obviously, no notice of the aforesaid

notification taken under the Act was issued to the

petitioners. The petitioners thereupon filed

W.P.No.16803 of 2008 inter alia on the ground that

neither any notice on the proceedings under the Act was

issued to their predecessor-in-title nor to them. It was

also contended that the petitioners are in possession of

the land in question.

8. In W.P.No.16803 of 2008, the petitioners had

prayed for the following relief:

                                  ::5::                             CJ & LNAJ
                                                           W.A.No.1438 of 2009

"Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to ULC proceedings in respect of the petitioners property admeasuring Ac.7-38 gts comprising of an extent of Ac.2-28 gts in Sy.No.574 (part) and Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.575 (part), Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.575 (part) & Ac.2.30 gts in Sy.No.564 (part) situated Alwal Village Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District including the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in proceedings G.O.Ms.No.580 dated 4.5.2005 and all the consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent in File No.G1/13089/76 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the said action and the proceedings and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners rights over the said land in any manner in pursuance of the ULC Proceedings conducted by the 1st respondent in file No."

9. The learned Single Judge by order dated

05.03.2009 inter alia held that the power under Section

34 of the Act was exercised at the instance of respondent

No.2 and therefore, exercise of powers in the facts and

circumstances of the case is bad in law. It was further ::6:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009

held that the order dated 04.05.2005 passed in exercise

of suo motu powers under Section 34 of the Act does not

bind the petitioners. The learned Single Judge further

held that the provisions of the Act were repealed with

effect from 27.03.2008. The learned Single Judge

noticed the stand taken on behalf of the petitioners and

held that in the counter affidavit, the respondents have

not specifically taken a stand that the possession of the

land in question has been taken. The learned Single

Judge, therefore, quashed the order dated 04.05.2005

passed by the State Government under Section 34 of the

Act and the consequential order dated 23.12.2005

passed by the competent authority. In the aforesaid

factual background, this appeal arises for our

consideration.

10. Learned Special Government Pleader for the

respondents has submitted that the learned Single Judge

ought to have appreciated that the petitioners had no

locus to question the order dated 04.05.2005 passed ::7:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009

under Section 34 of the Act and the consequential order

dated 23.12.2005, as they have purchased the land in

question by two registered sale deeds dated 29.07.2006.

It is further submitted that since the petitioners had

purchased the land before the orders under the Act were

passed, the question of issuing notice to them does not

arise. It is therefore urged that the learned Single Judge

erred in not appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the

matter.

11. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has

been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in

State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Adarsh Seva

Sahkari Samiti Limited 1 and State of U.P. and

another vs. Ehsan and another 2.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents invited the attention of this Court to the

order passed by the learned Single Judge and contended

(2016) 12 SCC 493

2023 SCC Online SC 1331 ::8:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009

that neither any notice was issued to the predecessor-in-

title of the petitioners nor to them. It is further

submitted that the orders impugned in the writ petition

have been passed in violation of the provisions of the Act.

It is also submitted that the proceedings were initiated

under the Act against a dead person. It is therefore

contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly

quashed the order dated 04.05.2005 and the

consequential order dated 23.12.2005. It is submitted

that the petitioners have locus to maintain the writ

petition.

13. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance

has been placed on a decision of the learned Single

Judge of this Court in Y. Sri Rama Krishnaiah vs.

Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land

Ceiling, Vijayawada and others 3.

14. We have considered the rival submissions made on

both sides.

    1989 (1) ALT 48
                                  ::9::                             CJ & LNAJ
                                                           W.A.No.1438 of 2009

15. Admittedly, the State Government has exercised the

power under Section 34 of the Act on 04.05.2005 and

thereafter an order under Section 8(4) of the Act was

passed on 23.12.2005. Subsequently, notice under

Section 10(3) of the Act was issued on 31.01.2006 which

eventually culminated into notification under Section

10(6) of the Act on 28.03.2006. After the notification

under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued, the petitioners

have purchased the land in question by two registered

sale deeds dated 29.07.2006.

16. The pivotal question which arises in this intra court

appeal is about the locus of the petitioners.

17. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note

of Sections 10(3) and 10(4) of the Act, which are

reproduced for the facility of the reference.

"10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.-

      (3)   At   any   time    after   the   publication    of   the
      notification   under    sub-section    (1)   the   competent
                                ::10::                          CJ & LNAJ
                                                       W.A.No.1438 of 2009

authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the Sate Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.

(4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under sub-section (3)--

(i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and

(ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land."

18. Thus, it is evident that during the commencement

of the date of publication of notice under Section 10(3) of

the Act, no person can transfer any property by sale, ::11:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009

mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land

specified in the notification.

19. Section 10(5) of the Act provides for vesting of the

land. It is trite law that vesting of land takes place when

the land vests absolutely in the State Government. In

the instant case, admittedly, the notice under Section

10(3) of the Act was issued on 31.01.2006. Therefore,

after 31.01.2006, the vendors of the petitioners had no

authority in law to execute the sale deed in favour of the

petitioners on 29.07.2006. The same was clearly hit by

Section 10(4) of the Act.

20. In view of the aforementioned reasons, it is evident

that the petitioners had no locus to challenge

G.O.Ms.No.580, dated 04.05.2005 passed under Section

34 of the Act and the subsequent order, dated

23.12.2005 passed by the competent authority under

Section 8(4) of the Act. The learned Single Judge has

failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

                              ::12::                        CJ & LNAJ
                                                   W.A.No.1438 of 2009

21. In view of the prayer in the writ petition, we are not

inclined to deal with the issue whether or not possession

of the land in question was taken by the competent

authority and leave the same open to be agitated in an

appropriate proceeding.

22. I.A.No.1 of 2019 has been filed by an implead

petitioner on the ground that he has purchased a part of

the land in question by registered sale deed dated

26.03.2013.

23. I.A.No.1 of 2021 has been filed by an implead

petitioner on the ground that he has purchased a part of

the land in question by registered sale deed dated

31.08.2013.

24. Since this Court has already held that the

petitioners themselves have no locus to question

G.O.Ms.No.580, dated 04.05.2005, I.A.Nos.1 of 2019 and

1 of 2021 preferred by the subsequent purchasers during ::13:: CJ & LNAJ W.A.No.1438 of 2009

the pendency of the proceedings before this Court cannot

be entertained and the same are accordingly rejected.

25. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 are filed by the persons

claiming to be protected tenants.

26. The claim of the protected tenants in this intra

court appeal which essentially is confined to examine the

validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge

is concerned, the learned Single Judge is confined to

examine the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the

right, title and interest of the implead petitioners in

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 cannot be entertained in this

writ appeal.

27. The aforesaid applications are disposed of with

liberty to the implead petitioners in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of

2023 to take recourse to the remedies available to them

in law.

                            ::14::                        CJ & LNAJ
                                                 W.A.No.1438 of 2009

28. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned

order dated 05.03.2009 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.16803 of 2008 cannot be sustained in

the eye of law and the same is accordingly quashed.

29. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if

any, stand closed.

___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 03.11.2023 ES