Pakalapati Anuradha vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3841 Tel

Telangana High Court

Pakalapati Anuradha vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 12 June, 2025

Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy

Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                WRIT PETITION No.30564 of 2021
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction from this Court

to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the Land

Regularization Application No.3000052966 vide proceedings dated

18.12.2019 claiming that the said land falls under ULC proceedings

and consequently erecting the sign boards on the subject property

plot bearing No.35, an extent of 300 square yards of site equal to

250.80 square meters in Sy.No.60 of Guttalabegumpeta Village,

Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary,

unjust and contrary to law and also violation G.O.Ms.No.733 dated

31.10.1988 and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution

of India.

2. It is the claim of the petitioner that she purchased plot

bearing No.35 admeasuring 300 sq. yards in Sy.No.60 of

Guttalabegumpeta Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District (schedule property) under registered sale deed dated

16.07.1990 from the previous owner, Indukuri Suryakanthamma.

Later, the petitioner alienated the under registered sale deed

bearing document No.2140 of 2016 dated 19.02.2016 in favour of

one B. Krishnaveni. The sale deed dated 19.02.2016 contains a

recital that the vendor applied for LRS permission vide Application

No.3000052966 dated 31.01.2016 and received acknowledgment

from GHMC. It is submitted that the ULC Department erected board

on the compound wall of the schedule property stating that the land

belongs to ULC department. On enquiry, the petitioner came to

know that her LRS application was rejected through online

proceedings dated 18.12.2019 stating that the site falls under ULC

surplus land as per the list of ULC surplus land under Section 10(6)

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

Act') furnished by the Special Officer and Competent Authority.

3. It is submitted that the schedule property is included in the

peripheral area of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and exempted

under ULC the Act in terms of G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988.

The layout of the petitioner was approved the authorities after

G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 came into force. There are

several plots in Guttalabegumpet, which have been regularized and

none of the plots is shown as ULC surplus land. After lapse of 30

years, the respondent authorities are now claiming that the

property is covered by ULC proceedings without any manner of

right. The petitioner is in possession of the schedule property.

As sign board is erected by the respondent authorities,

the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition.

4. The case of the respondent No.2, as per the counter affidavit,

is that one Sri Earani Ramaiah, was pattadar of land bearing

Sy.No.60 admeasuring Ac.12.28 guntas, Guttalabegumpet Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. The said Earani

Ramaiah died represented by his legal heir, E. Nagesh, who filed

declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, declaring the lands held

by his father in C.C.No.F1/4277/6(1)/2003. Accordingly, enquiry

was conducted and provisional order was passed under Section 8(1)

and notice under Sections 8(3) of the Act was issued on 29.01.2004

determining the land owner as excess land holder to an extent of

51,395.12 sq. meters in Sy.No.60 of Guttalabegumpet Village, after

allowing retainable extent of 1,000.00 sq. meters to him under

Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Objections were not filed within the

stipulated period and final orders under Section 8(4) of the Act

were issued on 01.03.2004 confirming Section 8(1) order.

Thereafter, notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued

and published in A.P. Gazette No.165 dated 28.07.2004.

The notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued and

published in A.P. Gazette No.175 dated 12.08.2004. Notice under

Section 10(5) was issued on 07.01.2006 and served on the

declarant on 16.01.2006. Thereafter, order under Section 10(6) of

the Act was issued on 17.03.2007 and possession of the surplus

land to an extent of 50,395.12 sq. meters was taken over on

08.02.2008 and handed over to Mandal Revenue Inspector,

Serilingampally Mandal. The surplus land vested with the

Government and the same is in the possession of Government since

08.02.2008.

5. It is submitted that the sale deed of the petitioner dated

16.07.1990 and subsequent sale made by the petitioner under sale

deed dated 19.02.016 are void under Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of

the Act, as permission was not obtained under Section 26 of the

Act. The Government issued various G.Os i.e. G.O.Ms.No.455,

Revenue (UC-I) Department dated 29.07.2002; G.O.Ms.No.747

Revenue (UC-1) Department dated 18.06.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.92

Revenue (ULC) Department dated 26.05.2016 for regularisation of

ULC surplus lands purchased by the third party occupants. Several

persons have applied for regularization of their lands and most of

the lands have been regularized in terms of the above G.Os.

Despite giving ample opportunities, the petitioner failed to file any

regularization application and she is not entitled for regularization

at this juncture.

6. It is further submitted that the subject land falls in Urban

Agglomeration and not exempted under G.O.Ms.No.73 dated

31.10.1988 as Guttalabegumpet is not within the peripheral area.

7. The respondent No.4 also filed counter affidavit contending

that the LRS application submitted by the petitioner was rejected as

clearance from ULC Department was not obtained. The clearance

from the ULC Department is pre-requisite for processing of the

applications for regularization of the plot under LRS as per

guidelines issued by the Government from time to time and also

Rule 6 (d) of the LRS Scheme under G.O.Ms.No.151 MA dated

02.11.2015. The petitioner failed to produce the clearance from the

ULC Department and thus, the LRS application was rejected. As the

site of the petitioner was covered by ULC surplus land, short fall

letter dated 18.12.2019 was issued by rejecting the application of

the petitioner.

8. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is contended

that Guttalabegumpet falls in the peripheral area and exempted

under G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988. In the additional reply

affidavit, the petitioner submitted that Madhapur and

Guttalabegumpet villages are under peripheral area from the year

1978 by virtue of notification C1/3102/78 dated 16.10.1978 and by

the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988, the

properties in Madhapur and Guttalabegumpet are in peripheral area

and under the said G.O., an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas of land has

been exempted. There is another Circular Memo No.139040/

UC.11(2)/88-4 dated 18.04.1989 wherein it is clarified that the

villages of Madhapur and Guttalabegumpet are in peripheral area.

Subsequently, Memo No.13927/UC.11(2)/98-9 dated 20.11.1997

was issued withdrawing the earlier Memo No.139040/UC.11(2)/88-

4 dated 18.04.1989 wherein Madhapur and Guttalabegumpet were

withdrawn from peripheral area and they were brought into the

urban land agglomeration area. Till such time, the properties of

Madhapur and Guttalabegumpet are under the peripheral area.

9. Mr. C. Naresh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the petitioner purchased the schedule property in

the year 1990 under registered sale deed dated 16.07.1990.

The sale deed was registered as the land was in peripheral area and

covered by G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988. The petitioner

obtained information of the Memo No.139040/UC.11(2)/88-4 dated

18.04.1989 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein it

was clarified that Guttalabegumpet has been changed from the core

are to peripheral are with effect from 16.10.1988. Subsequent

Memo No.13927/UC.11(2)/98-9 dated 20.11.1997 issued by the

Government withdrawing Memo No.139040/UC.11(2)/88-4 dated

18.04.1989 will not have any bearing on the title of the petitioner,

as the sale deed was executed in the year 1990 and withdrawal of

Memo No.139040/UC.11(2)/88-4 dated 18.04.1989 was in the year

1997. Thus, by the time Memo No.13927/UC.11(2)/98-9 dated

20.11.1997 was issued, the land was not in possession of the

original owner, Earani Ramaiah or his legal heir and the declaration

of E. Nagesh S/o. late E. Ramaiah, under Section 6(1) of the Act,

is stated to have been filed in C.C.No.F1/4277/6(1)/2003 in the

year 2003.

10. Mr. Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for

Assignment, submitted that the petitioner does not have locus

standi to institute this writ petition. The sale deed of the petitioner

dated 16.07.1990 is hit by Section 5(3) read with Section 10(4) of

the Act, as exemption under Section 26 of the Act was not taken.

Guttalabegumpet was in core area and the sale deed is null and

void. The ULC proceedings in CC.No.F1/4227/6(1)/2003 have

attained finality and the declarant or his legal heir has not

challenged the ULC proceedings. The petitioner is a third party and

not entitled to file this writ petition.

11. Two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition:

1. Whether the schedule property is covered by G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988.

2. Whether the ULC proceedings in CC.No.F1/4227/ 6(1)/2003 declaring E. Nagesh as surplus holder is binding on the petitioner in respect of the schedule property.

ISSUE No.1:

12. The petitioner purchased the schedule property under

registered sale deed dated 16.07.1990. It is clarified in the Memo

No.139040/UC.11(2)/88-4 dated 18.04.1989 that the land in

Guttalabegumpet is covered by G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988.

Subsequently, Memo No.139040/UC.11(2)/88-4 dated 18.04.1989

was withdrawn by Memo No.13927/UC.11(2)/98-9 dated

20.11.1997. During this intervening period, the petitioner

purchased the schedule property in the year 1990. Thus, in the

opinion of this Court, the property purchased by the petitioner was

when G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 was applicable to

Guttalabegumpet village. Moreover, the registering authority has

registered sale deed of the schedule property dated 16.07.1990 on

the declaration given by the petitioner that the land is covered

under G.O.Ms.No.33 dated 31.10.1988. Thus, even before the land,

which was earlier included under G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988

came to be excluded from the purview of the said G.O.,

the petitioner became the owner of the schedule property. It is not

known how the declarant, E. Nagesh, S/o. Late E. Ramaiah,

declared the land, which purportedly includes the schedule

property. Even if the schedule property is included in the

declaration, the same will not affect the rights of the petitioner

inasmuch as the land was not in possession of the declarant in the

year 2003 when Section 6(1) declaration was filed.

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.2:

13. The declaration is stated to have been filed in the year 2003

in proceedings in CC.No.F1/4277/6(1)/2003. Though the ULC

proceedings are not part of the Court records, it is the admitted

case of the respondents that Section 8(1) order was passed,

thereafter, Section 8(4) order was passed on 01.03.2004, Section

10(3) notification was issued and published on 12.08.2004; Section

10(5) notice was issued on 07.01.2006; Section 10(6) order was

passed on 17.03.2007 and possession of the surplus land to an

extent of 50,395.12 sq. meters in Sy.No.60, Guttalabegumet

village, was taken on 08.02.2008. As stated above, the schedule

property could not have been declared by E. Nagesh S/o. late

E. Ramaiah in C.C.No.F/4277/6(1)/2003. Further, it was mandatory

for the Special Officer and Competent Authority to issue notice to

the petitioner, who was in possession of the property, as on

07.01.2006 when Section 10(5) was notice was issued.

Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

14. Notice person in possession is mandatory as per the recent

decision of the Supreme Court in A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

CORPORATION v. TAHSILDAR 1, wherein it was held as under:

"28. A close reading of the above judgment more particularly the dictum laid therein lays down that though Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Central Act), which is pari-materia to Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Ceiling Act), provides that the vacant land is deemed to be acquired, yet it does not mean that the possession of the land has been taken over. This Court has categorically stated that the procedure contained under sub- sections (5) and (6) of the Act, 1976 must be scrupulously followed. This Court was of the view that Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 which is pari-materia to Section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act stipulates that any vacant land even if vested in the State under sub-section (3), the competent authority has to by notice in writing order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession of the land to the State Government within thirty days of the service of notice. If the landowner fails or refuses to do so, then the State Government has to follow the procedure under sub-section (6) of Section 10 or Section 11 as the case may be, and take forcible possession.

29. Thus, the dictum, as laid in Hari Ram (supra), is that where the possession of the subject land has not been taken over by the State Government or by any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority, the proceedings under the Act would not survive and mere vesting of the vacant land with the State Government by operation of law, without actual

2025 SCC OnLine SC 447

possession, is not sufficient. To put it in other words, the mere paper possession would not save the situation for the State Government unless the State is able to establish by cogent evidence that actual physical possession of the entire land was taken over by evicting each and every person from the land. The onus is on the State to establish that actual physical possession of the excess vacant land was taken over before the repeal.

...

37. Sub-section (5) of Section 10 talks of "possession"

which says where any land is vested in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person, who may be in possession of it to surrender or transfer possession to the State Government or to any other person, duly authorized by the State Government.

38. If de facto possession has already passed on to the State Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) to Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression "where any land is vested." under sub- section (5) to Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) to Section 10 can be voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1976 early. Once there is no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in writing under subsection (5) to Section 10 to surrender or deliver possession. Sub-section (5) of Section 10 visualizes a situation of surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession.

39. The mere vesting of the land under subsection (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State

Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under subsection (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. In the case on hand, the State Government has in our considered view not been able to establish any of those situations and hence the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999."

15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed

holding the schedule property (plot) of petitioner is not surplus land

in proceedings CC.No.F1/4277/6(1)/2003. Hence, the impugned

proceedings dated 18.12.2019 are set aside and the respondent

No.4 is directed to consider the LRS application of the petitioner

bearing No.3000052966 without insisting for clearance from the

ULC department.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J June 12, 2025 DSK