Telangana High Court
The State Of Ts., Revenue,Hyderabad, ... vs Mr. Rajendra Agarwal, Hyderabad, And 10 ... on 19 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.724 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao)
This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellants,
who are respondent Nos.1 to 5 in W.P.No.7753 of 2015,
aggrieved by order dated 25.10.2016, passed by learned
Single Judge in the said writ petition.
2. Heard Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue(Assignment) and Sri C.Hanmantha
Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 to 6 and Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.7 to 9. No
representation on behalf of respondent Nos.10 and 11.
3. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the
writ petition for convenience.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1 The claim of the petitioners is that one M.Vittallayya
was the owner and possessor of land to an extent of
Acs.2.00 in Survey No.62 of Madhapur Village,
Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and he
alienated the same to P.Nageshwar Rao, who is the
Managing Director of respondent No.10-company and
others through registered sale deed vide document
bearing No.8881 of 1987, dated 07.12.1987. Respondent
No.10-company has availed loan from bank and
committed default in repaying the loan amount.
Accordingly Reserve Bank of India filed Company Petition
No.39 of 2000 before erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad wherein the Company Court in
C.A.No.666 of 2003 appointed Official Liquidator by its
order dated 22.09.2003 and directed the Official
Liquidator to take possession of the assets of directors of
respondent No.10-company and to put on sale including
subject land in open auction on "as is where is and
whatever there is" basis. Accordingly, the Official
Liquidator conducted public auction wherein the
petitioners have participated and were declared as highest
bidders and purchased the subject property by paying
total sale consideration of Rs.2,21,00,000/- and the
Company Court by its order dated 17.11.2003 in
C.A.No.666 of 2003 confirmed the sale in favour of the
petitioners, being highest bidders, through orders dated
09.12.2003 in C.A.No.2012 of 2003 and the Company
Court directed the Official Liquidator to handover the
possession of the subject property to the petitioners.
Accordingly, Official Liquidator had executed sale deed
bearing No.8405 of 2004, dated 12.02.2004 in favour of
the petitioners and possession of the subject land was
delivered to them and their names were mutated in
revenue records, by the Tahsildar vide proceedings
No.B/4584/2004, dated Nil.02.2005. Subsequently, the
petitioners submitted application on 17.08.2009 for
conversion and basing on the same, the State Government
after calling reports from the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority('HMDA' for brevity) and other
authorities and having collected Rs.3,66,277/- towards
development charges and publication charges under
Section 15(3) & 15(4) of the HMDA Act, 2008, issued
G.O.Ms.No.548, Municipal Administration & Urban
Development (I) Department, dated 02.09.2009 changing
the land use to an extent of 1767.51 sq.mtrs out of
Acs.2.00 from recreation use to commercial use zone and
the remaining land was kept for recreational use.
Thereafter, petitioners have made application dated
21.07.2010, for building permission and respondent No.8
vide proceedings Lr.No.523/CSC/TP11/WZ/2010/1454,
dated 06.08.2010, informed the petitioners that subject
land is covered by the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976(for brevity 'ULC Act') and
communicated the same through Lr.No.A4/1844/08,
dated 01.05.2008 and further informed that the
application could not be processed and advised the
petitioners for taking necessary action. Thereafter,
petitioners submitted another representation dated
20.12.2010 to respondent No.8 for grant of building
permission, but respondent No.8 issued the proceeding
vide letter Lr.No.523/CSC/TPII/WZ/2010/2612, dated
30.12.2010, directing the petitioners to submit NOC from
respondent No.2 since the subject land is affected under
the ULC Act. Thereafter, petitioners have submitted
application dated 08.04.2013, before respondent No.2 for
issuance of No Objection Certificate for the purpose of
obtaining the building permission and respondent No.2
issued proceeding No.F1/A6/689/2013 in CC
No.F1/4143/2004, dated 22.04.2013 advising the
petitioners to apply for regularization of the land in terms
of G.O.Ms.No.747, Revenue (UC-I) Department, dated
18.06.2008 by paying requisite amount. Aggrieved by the
above said proceedings, the petitioners have filed
W.P.No.7753 of 2015.
4.2 Learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ
petition only on the ground that the petitioners have
purchased the property through auction conducted by the
Company Court by paying valuable sale consideration and
they are bonafide purchasers and the petitioners have
acquired the property on 12.02.2004, whereas declarant
i.e., M.Vittalaiah filed declaration on 11.11.2004 and the
respondents initiated the proceedings under the ULC Act
and passed the orders behind back of the petitioners and
the State repealed the ULC Act on 27.03.2008 and by
virtue of the repealed Act, obtaining NOC from the
respondent authorities is not required. Learned Single
Judge further held that the respondents have not issued
any notice to the petitioners under Section 10(5) of the
ULC Act as well Rule 5(2) of ULC Rules and the
proceedings issued under the ULC Act are liable to be
declared as illegal and gross violation of the principles of
natural justice.
4.3 Learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned
memo issued by respondent No.2, dated 22.04.2013 and
the impugned letter dated 30.12.2010, issued by
respondent No.8 and directed respondent Nos.7 and 8 to
process the building permission application of the
petitioners dated 21.07.2010, in accordance with law,
without insisting for NOC from respondent No.2.
Aggrieved by the above said order, respondent Nos.1 to 5
have filed the present writ appeal.
5. Learned Government Pleader vehemently contended
that the subject property is hit by the provisions of the
ULC Act and the property purchased by the writ
petitioners through registered sale deed dated
12.02.2004, is void as per the provisions of the Section
5(3) and Section 10(4) of the ULC Act and the petitioners
have not questioned the proceedings dated 20.06.2005
and 06.01.2006 issued under ULC Act and the same have
become final and the respondents have taken possession
of the subject property on 14.03.2008. Unless and until
the petitioners have questioned the orders passed under
the provisions of the ULC Act, they are not entitled to any
relief and the learned Single Judge without properly
considering the contentions of the respondents allowed
the writ petition travelling beyond the scope of the writ
petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the writ petitioners submits that learned Single Judge
after considering the contentions of the respective parties
and provisions of the ULC Act and also law allowed the
writ petition by giving cogent reasons.
6.1. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners further
submits that during the pendency of the writ appeal,
State Government through Commissioner, Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation('GHMC' for brevity) had
addressed a letter No.01/DC/F&B/RW/ACP/C-
20/GHMC/2008, dated 18.07.2018 to the petitioners
informing that the GHMC has proposed for development
of Durgam Cheruvu and widening of existing 40 feet road
to proposed 100 feet wide road from Madhapur main road
to Inorbit Mall near Hanging bridge and the Plot/Premises
in Survey No.62 of Madhapur Village is getting affected
under Development (Beautification of Tank with
Plantation, Landscaping, Walking and Cycling Tracks) of
Durgam Cheruvu and also proposed 100 feet wide Road
widening. In the said letter, it was mentioned by the
Commissioner that an area of 9680 square yards out of
petitioners' property in Survey No.62 of Madhapur Village
is affected and Commissioner, GHMC had made request
to handover the said affected portion of the property to
GHMC and give consent under Section 146 of the GHMC
Act, in the public interest and gave an undertaking to the
petitioners that they will arrange the compensation to the
petitioners in the form of TDR as per G.O.Ms.No.330,
dated 28.12.2017. Pursuant to the said letter, the
petitioners have given consent letter dated 20.08.2018
agreeing to take the benefits extended through
G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.330
dated 28.02.2017. In pursuance to the same, petitioners
had made gift settlement deeds dated 05.10.2018 and
18.10.2018 in favour of the Commissioner, GHMC
transferring an extent of 9680 square yards and
accordingly GHMC had issued TDR certificate dated
29.10.2018 and above said documents were enclosed
along with I.A.No.1 of 2024 and learned counsel submits
that by virtue of the subsequent developments, the cause
in the writ appeal does not survive.
7. Learned Government Pleader by way of reply
submits that the proceedings issued by GHMC are not
binding upon respondent Nos.1 to 5.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by
respective parties and after perusal of the material
available on record, it reveals that one M.Vittallayya was
the owner and possessor of subject land and he alienated
the same to P.Nageshwar Rao, who is the Managing
Director of respondent No.10-company and others
through registered sale deed dated 07.12.1987.
Respondent No.10-company has availed loan from bank
and committed default in repaying the loan amount.
Accordingly Reserve Bank of India filed Company Petition
No.39 of 2000 before erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad wherein the Company Court in
C.A.No.666 of 2003 appointed Official Liquidator by its
order dated 22.09.2003 and directed the Official
Liquidator to take possession of the assets of directors of
respondent No.10-company and to put on sale including
subject land in open auction on "as is where is and
whatever there is" basis. Accordingly, the Official
Liquidator conducted public auction wherein the
petitioners have participated and purchased the subject
property by paying total sale consideration of
Rs.2,21,00,000/- and the Company Court by its order
dated 17.11.2003 in C.A.No.666 of 2003 confirmed the
sale through orders dated 09.12.2003 in C.A.No.2012 of
2003 and directed the Official Liquidator to handover the
possession of the subject property to the petitioners.
Accordingly, Official Liquidator had executed sale deed
bearing No.8405 of 2004, dated 12.02.2004 in favour of
the petitioners and possession of the subject land was
delivered to them and their names were mutated in
revenue records and petitioners submitted application for
conversion of the land on 17.09.2008, basing on the
same, the State Government after calling reports from the
HMDA and other authorities and having collected
Rs.3,66,277/- towards development charges and
publication charges under Section 15(3) & 15 (4) of the
HMDA Act, 2008, issued G.O.Ms.No.548, Municipal
Administration & Urban Development (I) Department,
dated 02.09.2009 changing the land use to an extent of
1767.51 sq.mtrs out of Acs.2.00 of the subject land from
recreation use to commercial use zone and the remaining
land was kept for recreational use. Thereafter, the
petitioners have made application on 21.07.2010 for
building permission and respondent No.8 vide proceeding
Lr.No.523/CSC/TP11/WZ/2010/1454, dated 06.08.2010,
informed the petitioners that subject land is covered by
the provisions of ULC Act and respondent No.2
issued proceeding No.F1/A6/689/2013 in
CC.No.F1/4143/2004, dated 22.04.2013, advising the
petitioners to apply for regularization of land in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.06.2008 by paying requisite
amount. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners filed
W.P.No.7753 of 2015.
9. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition
holding that the petitioners have purchased the property
on 12.02.2004 in auction in company proceedings
whereas the declarant viz., M.Vittalaiah filed declaration
on 11.11.2004 under the ULC Act. Basing on the said
declaration, the respondent authorities declared an extent
of 73,462.38 square meters as surplus land on
08.04.2005 and passed orders on 20.06.2005 and
06.01.2006 without issuing any notice to the petitioners
behind their back.
10. In so far as the other contention raised by the
learned Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge
travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition and allowed
the writ petition by relying upon the principle laid down in
Ranbir Singh Vs. Executive Engineer 1 is concerned,
pursuant to the public auction conducted in the Company
proceedings, the Official Liquidator executed the
registered sale deed dated 12.02.2004 in favour of the
petitioners by receiving valuable sale consideration and
the Revenue officials have mutated the names of the writ
petitioners in the revenue records and thereafter
respondents considered the claim of the petitioners for
conversion of the subject land for non-agricultural
(2011) 15 SCC 453
purpose and issued G.O.Ms.No.548, dated 02.09.2009
after collecting huge amounts.
11. The other contention of respondent Nos.2 to 4 that
they have taken possession of the subject property on
14.03.2008 exercising the powers conferred under the
ULC Act and the petitioners have not questioned the same
is concerned, admittedly, respondent No.3 without giving
any notice and opportunity to the writ petitioners passed
orders under the ULC Act behind their back though they
have purchased the property by paying valuable sale
consideration in auction conducted in company
proceedings even prior to submission of the declaration by
the declarant.
12. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the
pendency of the writ appeal, GHMC issued proceedings
Lr.No.01/DC/F&B/RW/ACP/C-20/GHMC/2018, dated
18.07.2018 requesting the petitioners to give consent for
land acquisition for proposed Development of Durgam
Cheruvu and also for road widening and hand over the
affected portion of the property in Survey No.62 of
Madhapur Village to the GHMC. Accordingly, the
petitioners gave consent on 20.08.2018, agreeing to take
the benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012 and
G.O.Ms.No.330 dated 28.12.2017 and by virtue of the
same, respondents have taken possession of the subject
land for the public purpose and issued TDR in favour of
the petitioners as per the G.O.Ms.No.330 dated
28.12.2017.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court do not find any
perversity or error in the impugned order passed by
learned Single Judge to invoke the powers conferred
under Clause 15 of the Letter Patents.
14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
_______________________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
19th August, 2024
PSW
