Kallem Srinivasa Reddy S/O Late ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3710 Tel

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                               AND

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR



                 WRIT APPEAL No.649 of 2007


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


      Mr. C.Hanumantha Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants.

      Dr. Juttukonda Vijaya Laxmi, learned Government

Pleader for Assignment for respondent Nos.1 to 6.


      2.      This intra court appeal emanates from an order

dated 02.04.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.5805 of 2007, in which the writ petition preferred by

the appellants has been dismissed.


      3.      Facts

giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the land measuring Ac. 5.20 guntas is situated

in Kothapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. The erstwhile owner of the land namely the vendor

of the appellants filed return under the provisions of Urban ::2::

Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (briefly referred to

hereinafter as 'the Act'). Thereupon, a draft statement under

Section 8(1) and 8(3) of the Act was issued on 23.11.1981, by

which the land was declared as surplus land. The declarant

submitted a petition on 03.12.1981 before the competent

authority stating that he has no objection to treating the land

as surplus land. Thereupon on 12.12.1981, final orders

under Section 8(4) of the Act were passed. Thereafter, a

declaration under Section 10(1) of the Act was furnished on

06.10.1982, which was followed by a notification under

Section 10(3) of the Act on 10.03.1983. A notice under

Section 10(5) of the Act was served on the declarant on

07.04.1983 and thereafter an order under Section 10(6) of the

Act was passed on 15.12.1983. The declarant filed an appeal

under Section 33 of the Act, which was dismissed on

16.09.1983. The order passed by the competent authority as

well as appellate authority under the Act was challenged by

the declarant namely the predecessor-in-title of the appellants

in a writ petition namely W.P.No.11764 of 1983, which was

dismissed.

::3::

4. Thereafter, it appears that the State Government

issued G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 under Section

20(1)(a) of the Act for grant of exemption upto a maximum

limit of 10 square meters of vacant land in the peripheral

areas as specified in Column (3) of Schedule-I to Urban Land

(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

5. The appellants claim to be in possession of the

subject land by virtue of an agreement of sale-cum-general

power of attorney dated 28.08.2000.

6. The appellants after a period of approximately 19

years filed a writ petition some time in the year 2007 namely

W.P.No.5805 of 2007 seeking the following relief:

"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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st Respondent in not communicating the orders of exemption on the application dt. 1-3-2006 extending the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.733 Rev. Uc- II Dept., Dt. 31-10-1988 to the petitioners land of an extent of 5 Acres 20 guntas i.e, 22,782 sq. meters in Sy.Nos. 32,34 and 35 part of Kothapet Village Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and also contrary to the ::4::

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Hyderabad and others Vs. P.S.Rao reported in AIR 2000 SC 843 and further clarified in I.A.No.2 of 2000 reported in 2000 (2) SCC 451 and decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Nalla Yakoob Vs. State of A.P. and others reported in 1992 (2) ALT 473 and declare that the petitioners said land is exempted and out side the purview of provisions of Chapter-III of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and further direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property of an extent of 5 Acres 20 guntas i.e, 22,782 sq. meters in Sy.Nos. 32,34 and 35 part of Kothapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District."

7. Learned Single Judge by an order 02.04.2007 inter

alia held that the appellants are not entitled to claim the

benefit of exemption notification as the appellants are the

subsequent purchasers. Accordingly, the writ petition

preferred by the appellants was dismissed.

8. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal

has been filed.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has

submitted that appellants are in actual physical possession of

the subject land. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted

that if the benefit of an exemption under Section 20 of the Act ::5::

was available to the owner of the land, the same would

automatically accrue to the appellants who are subsequent

purchasers. However, learned Single Judge has failed to

appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. It is also

submitted that once the notification under Section 20(1)(a) of

the Act is issued, the same contains an exemption from

restriction of transfer of land as well. It is also pointed out

that the decision rendered by learned Single Judge in

T.Muralidhar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 has been

upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated

03.08.2018 passed in W.A.No.871 of 2017. Reference has

also been made to decision of Supreme Court in T.R.Thandur

v. Union of India 2 as well as Special Officer & Competent

Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad v. P.S. Rao 3.

10. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader

for Assignment submitted that the appellants are not entitled

for the benefit of exemption notification as the lands had

already vested in the State Government under Section 10(3) of

the Act on 10.03.1983 and an order under Section 10(6) of

1 2017 (3) ALD 706 2 (1996) 3 SCC 690 3 (2000) 2 SCC 451 ::6::

the Act was already passed. It is further submitted that the

appellants claim to be in possession on the basis of an

agreement of sale dated 28.08.2000 and the appellants are

not the owners of the land in question. It is further submitted

that no case for interference has been made out in exercise in

this intra court appeal.

11. We have considered the rival submissions made

on both sides and have perused the record.

12. Admittedly, the proceedings under the Act were

initiated against the erstwhile owner namely the predecessor-

in-title of the appellants. From the material available on

record, it is evident that an order under Section 8(4) of the Act

was passed by the competent authority on 12.12.1981.

Thereafter, a declaration under Section 10(1) of the Act was

published on 06.10.1982, which was followed by a

notification dated 10.03.1983 under Section 10(3) of the Act.

Thereafter, an order under Section 10(6) of the Act was

passed on 15.12.1983.

::7::

13. Section 10(3) of the Act reads as follows:

"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 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 State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified."

14. Thus, it is evident that the excess land in question

had vested in the State Government on 10.03.1983. It is also

pertinent to note that order passed by the competent

authority was upheld in appeal on 16.09.1983, as the appeal

preferred by the declarant namely the erstwhile owner of the

subject land was dismissed.

::8::

15. After the land had vested in the State Government,

the State Government in exercise of powers under Section

20(1)(a) of the Act issued G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988.

16. The relevant extract of aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.733

dated 31.10.1988 reads as under:

"6. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and of all other powers hereunto enabling and in suppression of all other orders issued previously in this behalf from time to time the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby accord.

(a) Exception of the vacant land of the agricultural land which is likely to be used for non-agricultural purpose of at the option of the holder thereof, or both to a maximum extent of five acres situated within the peripheral area as specified in column (3) of the schedule I in the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 of the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, Visakhapatnam Urban Agglomeration, Vijayawada Urban Agglomeration, Guntur and Warangal Agglomeration in excess of the ceiling limit, from the provision of Chapter-Ill of the said act, and

(b) Permission to transfer any such land or part thereof by a person by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, to the extent of five acres of land in excess of ceiling limit excluding the area required for roads, hospitals and or other public use.

::9::

7. The Government have also decided to suo-moto make such modifications in the master plans of the aforesaid five Urban Agglomerations as are considered necessary to give effect to this order, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, Necessary orders in this regard will be issued by the Housing Municipal Administration, & Urban Government Department separately."

17. The appellants claim the benefit of aforesaid

G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 in the writ petition. As

stated supra, the land had already vested in the State

Government on 10.03.1983. Thereupon the State Government

became the absolute owner of the land in question.

Therefore, the exemption granted in respect of vacant land

upto the maximum limit of 10,000 square meters in

peripheral area as contained in G.O.Ms.No.733 dated

31.10.1988 could not have been claimed by the appellants as

the appellants claim to be in possession of the land on the

basis of an agreement of sale dated 28.08.2000 which was

subsequent in point of time. The learned Single Judge

therefore has rightly concluded that a transferee cannot claim

the benefit of exemption notification dated 31.10.1988 which ::10::

was issued after the land had vested in the State Government.

It is also pertinent to note that for yet another reason, the

appellants are not entitled to claim benefit of exemption of

land as they claim to be in possession of the land even

otherwise in excess of Ac. 5.00 of land.

18. Sofar as the reliance placed by learned Senior

Counsel for the appellants on a decision of learned Single

Judge in T.Muralidhar Rao's case (supra), which has been

upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated

03.08.2018 in W.A.No.871 of 2017 is concerned, the same is

of no assistance to the appellants in the facts of the case as

the aforesaid decision is not an authority for the proposition

that the subsequent transferee is entitled to claim benefit of

exemption. Sofar as the decision of the Supreme Court relied

on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in

Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land

Ceilings, Hyderabad's case (supra) is concerned, the same is

an authority for the proposition whether or not an application

for grant of exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the Act is

maintainable once an excess land has been declared and ::11::

excess land is vested in the State Government. Therefore, the

aforesaid decision is also of no assistance to the appellants in

the factual circumstances of the case.

19. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to defer with the view taken by learned Single

Judge.

20. In the result, Writ Appeal is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

Date: 08.11.2023 KL