J 2012 SCC OnLine AP 617 2012 5 ALD 325 Manikumarg Dsnluacin 20220217 121019 1 7

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Thursday, February 17, 2022

Printed For: Mani Kumar G, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 SCC OnLine AP 617 : (2012) 5 ALD 325
In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad

(BEFORE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.)
BHEL (R & D) Employees' Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.,

Hyderabad
Versus
Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,
Hyderabad and another
WP No. 26527 of 2010
Decided on July 3, 2012
Page: 327
ORDER
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the proceedings of the Special Officer and
Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad-1st respondent in CC No. G
1/629/2007, issued under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short, ‘the Act’) including the panchanama, dated
11.2.2008 and also instructions under the Memo NO. 1271/G1/10, dated 15.4.2010,
addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District-2nd respondent
2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this writ petition by M/s. BHEL
(R & D) Employees' Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as
‘the petitioner-Society’), are: The petitioner-M/s. BHEL (R & D) Employees'
Cooperative Housing Society Limited is a Society registered under the provisions of
A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, in the year 1976. The object of the Society is to
secure house plots to all eligible members, who are employees of BHEL (R & D). The
petitioner Society entered into an agreement dated 30.1.1991 with Smt Pranothi
Srihari, represented by her father and General Power of Attorney Holder Sri R.
Sudershan Reddy and eight others in respect of Acs. 7.30 guntas in Survey No. 30/1,
Acs. 8.27 gts in Survey No. 31/1, Acs. 6.32 gts in Sy. No. 31/2 of Jeedimetla Village
and Acs. 2.24 gts in Survey No. 77 of Pet Basheerabad Village for a total consideration
of Rs. 37 lakhs. The total extent covered under the agreement is Acs. 25.33 guntas.
The vendor-Smt Pranothi Srihari got the same under a Will dated 24.7.1976 from her
late grandfather Pingali Indrasena Reddy, who purchased the lands under a sale deed
dated 29.3.1966 from Deoni Mallaiah. The said Deoni Mallaiah purchased the lands
under a sale deed dated 8.10.1963 from the original pattedar M. Shyamsunder. The
petitioner Society after securing permission for draft lay out from Hyderabad Urban
Development Authority (HUDA) developed the lands. The HUDA sanctioned final lay
out under letter bearing No. 7520/MP2/Plg/HUDA/94 dated 22.9.1997. In pursuance of
the agreement of sale, Smt. Pranothi Srihari executed four sale deeds bearing
Document Nos. 8802, 8803, 9070 and 9071 of 1993 in respect of Ac. 1.10 guntas
each in Sy. No. 30/1 in favour of the petitioner Society. Since the vendors failed to
execute the sale deeds in respect of other extents of lands, the petitioner Society filed
OS No. 91 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for
specific performance and obtained a decree on 18.2.2002. The vendors filed AS No.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1104 of 2002 assailing the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 91 of 1998 and the
said appeal ended in dismissal on 15.12.2005. The petitioner Society filed EP No. 5 of
2008 and obtained a sale deed dated 22.8.2008 through the process of Court in
respect Acs. 20.33 guntas. The remaining extent of Acs. 2.30 guntas in Sy. No. 30/1
of Jeedimetla Village came to be acquired by the petitioner Society under a sale deed
dated 22.8.2008. The petitioner Society allotted plots to it's members as per the final
lay out covering Acs. 23.00 guntas including Acs. 5.00 guntas in Sy. No. 30/1 of
Jeedimetla Village. The petitioner Society with the object of providing residential
complex with ownership apartments to its
Page: 328
members, who were not allotted any plot earlier, entered into construction agreement
with M/s. Qubix Ventures Limited. The petitioner Society obtained necessary
permission for construction of plots from GHMC, Hyderabad, vide Permit No. 161/80 of
2010 in File No. 635/CSC/TP-15/2009, dated 11.1.2010. The petitioner Society
allotted plots to its members who have obtained loans from banks and financial
institutions. When the petitioner Society approached the Sub Registrar, Quthbullapur,
to register sale deeds executed in favour of its members in the second week of
October, 2010, the 2nd respondent refused to receive the documents for registration
on the ground that the first respondent has sent Memo bearing No. 1271/G1/10, dated
15.4.2010 instructing the 2nd respondent to follow the guidelines in its letter bearing
No. A4/928/2010, dated 173.2010. The petitioner Society applied for information and
documents from the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,
Hyderabad-1st respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and it came to
know that the 1st respondent issued proceedings as if the land in Sy. No. 30/1 has
been declared as surplus land in the holding of M. Shyamsunder, The 1st respondent
initiated proceedings against M. Shyamsunder under the provisions of Act, while
considering the application of Dr. P. Hanumatha Rao, the Founder and Chairman of
M/s. Sweekar Rehabilitation Institute for Handicapped for grant of “No Objection
Certificate” in respect of his Plot Nos. 18 and 19 comprising Survey Nos. 206, 207 to
212 of Mahanagar Estate, Jeedimetla Village. The information secured by the petitioner
Society by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act from the office of the
Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land (Ceiling)-lst respondent revealed
that one Smt M. Shanta Bai filed declaration in Proceeding Nos. G2/7849, 7850 and
202 of 1976 in respect of Survey Nos. 206, 207 and 212 and that she has been found
surplus holder to an extent of 27,313.67 square metres, as per the order dated
13.10.1987. The 1st respondent converted NOC application filed by Dr. P. Hanmath
Rao into a regular proceedings under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the lands held
by M. Shyamsunder. At no point of time, notice was served on M. Shyamsunder. The
petitioner Society challenged the proceeding of the 1st respondent in CC No.
G1/629/2007 under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of Act including Panchanama, dated
11.2.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The principle ground of challenge to the
proceedings impugned in the writ petition is that M. Shyam Sunder sold land bearing
Sy. No. 30/1 long prior to commencement of the Act and that an extent of Acs. 6-00
in Sy. No. 30/1 along with other land was acquired by the Government for the purpose
of agricultural seed farm even before 1963 and the said Seed Farm has been
established in the acquired lands. Even the pahanies of the year 1964-65 evidenced
the possession of the Government Seed Farm in respect of Acs. 6-00 guntas. The
remaining land was in occupation of Deoni Mallaiah as purchaser. In the Pahani patrika
of the year 1966-67 in respect of S. No. 30/1, Sri Pingali Indrasena Reddy was
recorded as possessor of Acs. 7.27 guntas and the remaining land was shown to be in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
possession of the Government Seed Farm. The same entries continued in 1975-76.
The pahanies and the registered documents clearly disclosed that it was Smt Pranothi
Srihari, who was the owner and possessor to an extent of Acs. 7.27 guntas in Sy. No.
30/1 as on the date of commencement of the Act and that therefore, M. Shyam
Sunder was no longer owner much less the possessor of land in Sy. No. 30/1 by the
date of commencement of the Act Under Section 8(4) of the Act, issuance of notice to
the owner, occupants and all other persons interested in the land is mandatory. Had
there been spot verification or inspection, the authority should not have missed to
note the existing
Page: 329
Government Seed Farm in a part of the Survey No. 30/1 and houses and layouts in the
remaining part of Survey No. 30/1. At no point of time, notice was served on the
pattedar M. Shyam Sunder and no efforts were taken by the competent authority to
know his whereabouts or members of his family. Unlike other provisions of the Act,
Section 10(6) of the Act mandates issuance of notice to the person in actual
possession. M. Shyam Sunder was not in possession of the land on the date of
commencement of the Act and the lands were not Open, as shown in the panchanama.
There exist Government Seed Farm and structures, septic tank, electricity lines, roads,
water lines etc. The second respondent is a Quasi judicial authority discharging the
statutory functions under the Registration Act and he cannot refuse to receive the
document, except in case of land notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act
by the Government
3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 14.3.2011. The 1st respondent filed counter-
affidavit Sri M. Ravinder Reddy, Special Officer and Competent Authority, has sworn to
the counter-affidavit It is stated in the counter-affidavit that while considering the
application filed by Dr. P. Hanumantharao, Founder and Chairman, Sweekar
Rehabilitation Institute for Handicapped, Secunderabad, for grant of No Objection
Certificate in respect of Plot Nos. 18 and 19 comprising Survey Nos. 206,207 and 212
of Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, it came to light that Sri M. Shyamsundar
was the pattedar of the lands to an extent of Acs. 58.09 guntas comprising Survey
Nos. 5, 30/1, 30/2, 81, 7, 8, 206, 207, 212, 228, and 247 and that M. Shyamsundear
failed to file declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act Therefore, the case was taken up
sua motu and lands were computed to the holding of M. Shyamsundar and he was
given the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 733, Revenue (UC), Department, dated 31.10.1988
and found to be holding surplus land to the extent of 2,10,297.35 Sq. mtrs. and
accordingly, orders came to be passed under Section 4(1) of the Act and final
statement under Section 9 of the Act came to be issued vide Proceeding No. G
1/629/07, dated 16.6.2007. Further notification under Section 10(1) and declaration
under Section 10(3) were issued and got published in Gazette Nos. 93, dated
2.7.2007 and 231, dated 28.7.2007 respectively. Orders under Section 10(5) of the
Act were issued on 1.9.2007 directing the declarant to surrender the land within
stipulated time. Order under Section 10(6) of the Act came to be issued on 5.2.2008
directing the Enquiry Officer to take over the possession of the land. Accordingly,
possession was taken over on 11.2.2008 and handed over the same to the concerned
MRO under the cover of panchanama on 21.5.2010. For better appreciation, I may
refer relevant portion of the counter-affidavit and it reads as hereunder:
“I submit that all the proceedings, notification issued by the respondent No. 1 is
as per the procedure and well within the provisions of the ULC Act. Hence, the
contention of the petitioner is not correct. The sua moto proa, in CC No. G1/629/07
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
can not be clubbed with CC Nos. G1/7849, 7850/76 and G1/202/82 as the land in
two CCs belong to different declarants. The land was purchased by the writ
petitioner in Sy. No. 30/1 of Jeedimetla Village after commencement of the Act,
without obtaining any permission under Section 26 of the Act from ULC Authorities
and vendors of the writ petitioners who purchased the said land before
commencement of Act also have not filed any declaration before the ULC
Authorities. Hence, the Sy. No. 30/1 including other properties were computed to
holding of pattedar Sri Shyam Sunder.
Further it is submitted that on verification of the CC. files it is observed that no
inquiry report about ground status of land is
Page: 330
available and also not verified the revenue records i.e., pahani pathrika. The orders
and notices issued in this case were not served on the declarant at any point of time.
It is submitted that when the land is vested with the Government under Section
10(3) of the Act and possession of the land was also taken over the same should be
treated as Government Land and it should not be registered in favour of 3rd person
without clearance from the Government Further, it is submitted that the writ
petitioners are 3rd party purchaser. They have purchased the land after
commencement of the Act. The transactions made after commencement of the Act,
are null and void under Sections 10(4) and 5(3) of ULC Act”
4. Heard Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
Society and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the
respondents.
5. Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Society
contends that the 1st respondent failed to take note of the fact that on the date of the
suo motu enquiry, M. Shyamsunder, who is stated to be the original pattadar was not
in occupation of the lands and he executed sale deed much prior to the
commencement of the Act and therefore, initiation of proceedings under the provisions
of the Act treating him as pattedar and possessor of the lands is illegal. It is also
contended by him that the 1st respondent in the counter-affidavit specifically stated
that the original pattedar was not issued notice before determining the excess land
held by him and therefore, the order, dated 10.6.2006 is in violation of the principles
of natural justice and it cannot be given effect and so also the consequential
proceedings based on an invalid order cannot be given effect. It is also contended by
him that the persons in occupation of the lands are required to be put on notice before
the land holder being declared as a surplus land holder and also before taking
possession of the surplus land. The 1st respondent failed to issue notice to the
petitioner Society either before declaring M. Shyamsunder as surplus holder or before
taking possession of the surplus land. He would further contend that out of Acs. 13.16
guntas in Survey No. 30/1, an extent of Acs. 6.00 guntas was acquired by the
Government in 1963 for the purpose of agricultural seed farm and that inclusion of the
said land in the holding of the said Shyamsudar itself speaks of non-application of
mind of the 1st respondent to the facts of the case and also non-verification of the
revenue records. It is lastly contended by the learned Counsel that in view of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the repeal Act’)
which has been adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 27.3.2008 vide G.O.
Ms. No. 603, Revenue (U.C.I.) Department, dated 22.4.2008, all the proceedings
consequent to the order, dated 10.5.2006, shall stand abated. In support of his
submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in WP No. 19652
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of 2007, dated 29.4.2011 (Fertilizer Corporation of India Employees Cooperative

Housing Society v. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue (ULC-II) Department, Hyderabad); Singireddy Narasimha Reddy v.
Government of A.P., 2009 (6) ALD 169 : 2009 (4) ALT 579, Kothuru Babu Surendra
Kumar (died) v. Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,
Vijayawada, 2000 (4) ALD 596, Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer,
Serilingampally Mandal, 2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB) : AIR 2008 AP 15 (FB), A. Appa Rao v.
Competent Authority, Defence Estates Officer and Competent Authority (ULC),
Secunderabad, 2009 (5) ALD 800, Writ Appeal No. 1542 of 2008, dated 21.11.2008
(V. Srinivas v. The Government
Page: 331
of A.P., rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad), and the
decision of the Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, (2012)
1 SCC 792 and Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority, (2012) 4 SCC 718.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the

respondents submits that the land has been vested with the Government consequent
on notification issued under sub-section (5) of Section 10 and possession has been
taken over under Section 10(6) of the Act and therefore, repeal Act does not effect the
proceedings which have already been reached finality. It is also contended by the
learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner Society having failed to place
their objections during the enquiry before the Special Officer and Competent Authoriry
-lst respondent cannot be permitted to challenge the proceedings relatable to the
holding of M. Shyamsunder, which have reached the finality. During the course of
hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record the entire file
relating to the suo motu enquiry taken up by the 1st respondent in respect of the
lands held by M. Shyamsunder.
7. The file does not reflect of M Shyamsudner being put on notice during the suo
motu enquiry. The person put on notice is Dr. P. Hanumantha Rao, who sought for
NOC relating to Plot Nos. 18 and 19 comprising Survey Nos. 206, 207 and 212 of
Jeedimetla Village. Dr. P. Hanumantha Rao was not concerned with the land
admeasuring Acs. 7.30 guntas which is in occupation of the petitioner Society. Indeed,
the 1st respondent made a categorical statement in the counter-affidavit, relevant
portion of which has been extracted supra, that M. Shyamsunder has not been put on
notice and pahani patrikas were not verified. Indisputably an extent of Acs. 6.00
guntas have been acquired by the Government in the year 1963 for the purpose of
seed farm in Survey No. 30/1. So what is left over is only Acs. 7.16 cents, but the
Special Officer and Competent Authority included the total extent of Acs. 13.16 cents
in the holding of M. Shyamsunder. It indicates that the Special Officer has not verified
the records such as pahanis and proceeded to include the entire extent in the holding
of M. Shyamsunder. There is an obligation on the part of the Special Officer to serve
the draft statement on the declarant to enable him to raise objections with regard to
the lands included in the draft statement. For better appreciation, I may refer Section
8 of the Act, which reads as hereunder:
“Section 8. Preparation of draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess
of ceiling limit.—(1) On the basis of the statement filed under Section 6 and after
such inquiry as the competent authority may deem fit to make the competent
authority shall prepare a draft statement in respect of the person who has filed the
statement under Section 6.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Every statement prepared under sub-section (1) shall contain the following
particulars, namely:
(i) the name and address of the person;
(ii) the Particulars of all vacant lands and of any other land on which there is a
building, whether or not with a dwelling unit therein, held by such person;
(iii) the particulars of the vacant lands which such person desires to retain within
the ceiling limit;
(iv) the particulars of the right, title or interest of the person in the vacant lands;
and
(v) such other particulars as may be prescribed
(3) The draft statement shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on
the
Page: 332
person concerned together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft
statement shall be preferred within thirty days of the service thereof.
(4) The competent authority shall duly consider any objection received, within the
period specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (3) or within such further
period as may be specified by the competent authority for any good and
sufficient reason, from the person on whom a copy of the draft statement has
been served under that sub-section and the competent authority shall, after
giving the objector a, reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as
it deems fit”
8. Rule 5(2)(a)(ii) of the ULC Rules provide that the draft statement prepared under
Section 8(1) of the Act shall be served together with the notice under sub-section (3)
of Section 8, on all other persons so far as may be known, or are likely to have, any
claim, or interest in the ownership, or possession, or both, of the vacant lands, by
sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned-(i) in the case
of the holder of the vacant lands, to his address as given in the statement filed in
pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 6, and (ii) in the case of other person at their
last known addresses.
9. The petitioner Society purchased the lands under an agreement of sale and When
the executants of the agreement failed to execute the registered sale deed, a suit
being OS No. 91 of-1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District, came to be filed and the suit ended in decree. Thereupon, the executants of
the agreement challenged the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 91 of 1998 by
filing AS No. 1104 of 2002 and the appeal ended in dismissal on 15.12.2005.
Thereupon, the petitioner Society filed E.P. and got delivery of the property through
the process of the Court. Subsequently permission has been obtained from the
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for construction of 5 upper floors.
10. The material brought on record clearly established that the petitioner Society
was in occupation of Acs. 7.30 guntas as on the date of suo motu enquiry conducted
by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent without issuing any such notice as required
under Sections 8(1) and 8(3) of the Act has issued a final statement under Section 9
of the Act Similar issue came up for consideration before a Single Judge of this Court
in WP No. 19652 of 2007, wherein it has been held that the petitioner Society and
their members, who were in possession of the land and persons interested therein,
were entitled to issuance of notices under the provisions of the Act, and taking over
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
possession of the land, without notices to them, violates the principles of natural
justice, and as such, the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, affecting the
rights of the petitioner Society and their members in the land in question, cannot be
sustained and are liable to be set aside. Similar view has been taken by another Single
Judge of this Court in Singireddy Narasimha Reddy's case (supra). In Kothuru Babu
Swendra Kumar (died)s case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has also
dealt the similar issue and observed as hereunder
“What is culled out from the above discussion is that the competent authority
who has finalised the statement under Section 8(4) of the Act and final statement
under Section 9 and notification issued under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and Section 10
(5) of the Act failed to follow the mandatory provisions by issuing notice to the
persons likely to be affected viz., the petitioners, who are purchasers of the above
lands and it is also within their knowledge; and the records also reveal that Smt
Tulsamma,
Page: 333
the 4th and 5th respondent in the writ petitions admitted that she has no interest in
the above lands as she has sold the same to the society and the same was also
discussed by the competent authority in his earliest proceedings dated 28. S. 1984. In
view of the same non-issuance of notice and its service upon the interested persons is
fatal and the entire proceedings and the final statement under Section 8(4) of the Act;
and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 12.4.1990 and the consequential
orders of the first respondent under Section 8(4) and Section 9 of the Act dated
9.2.1991 and the notification issued under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act
are all of no consequences and consequently they are declared as non est. The writ
petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
11. The proposition of law laid down in the above cases squarely applies to the facts
of the case on hand. The petitioner Society is concerned with Acs. 7.30 guntas in
Survey No. 30/1 of Jeedimetla Village. Neither the original land owner nor the
subsequent purchasers including the petitioner Society have been put on notice by the
1st respondent while exercising suo motu powers of revision in deciding the surplus
land held by the declarant Therefore, the order, dated 11.2.2008, passed in CC No. G
1/629/2007 and consequential orders relatable to the land in Survey No. 30/1,
admeasuring Acs. 7.30 cents, Jeedimetla Village, are all of no consequences and
consequently they are declared as non est.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

J 2012 SCC OnLine AP 617 2012 5 ALD 325 Manikumarg Dsnluacin 20220217 121019 1 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J 2012 SCC OnLine AP 617 2012 5 ALD 325 Manikumarg Dsnluacin 20220217 121019 1 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Thursday, February 17, 2022

2012 SCC OnLine AP 617 : (2012) 5 ALD 325

In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad

BHEL (R & D) Employees' Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.,

of 2007, dated 29.4.2011 (Fertilizer Corporation of India Employees Cooperative

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the

You might also like