[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Smt.Nirmala K.Lahoti vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By … on 23 April, 2025
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.15746 and 15807 of 2008
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is
intrinsically interconnected, they are taken up and heard together
and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Petition No.15746 of 2008, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following
relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Procgs. No.E1/9131/76
and E1/9132/76 dated 06-03-2006 under Section 10(6) of the Act in
Sy.No.129/55 of Shaikpet Village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,
issued in the name of Sri Sardar Balwanth Singh & others as illegal, null
and void….”
3. Writ Petition No.15807 of 2008, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following
relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Procgs.No.E1/9131/76
and E1/9132/76 dated 06-03-2006 under Section 10(6) of the Act in
Sy.No.129/55 of Shaikpet Village, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,
issued in the name of Sri Sardar Balwanth Singh & others as illegal, null
and void….”
4. Writ Petition No.15746 of 2008 is taken up as a leading case to
decide the lis in these two cases.
2
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
6. It is stated that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have purchased open
lands admeasuring 434 sq.yards and 800 sq.yards, respectively in
Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) part of T.S.Nos.2, 3 & 4, Ward No.11,
Block ‘D’, situated at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, under registered
sale deeds bearing document Nos.4788 and 4798 of 2005 dated
27.07.2005 from their vendors i.e, Sayed Ale Hassan and 12 others
(legal heirs of Syed Abdul Khader Saheb). It is further stated that
originally, the petitioners vendors father-Syed Shah Abdul Khader,
was the pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.3.26 gts in Sy.No.129/55
(old Sy.No.165) situated at Shaikpet and the said land was assigned
new Survey numbers under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey
and Boundaries Act, 1923 vide T.S.Nos.2 to 57 Block D, Ward No.11,
Shaikpet, and the land admeasuring 2246 sq.mtrs which falls in
TS.No.4, Block D, Ward No.11, was recorded as vacant land in
possession of Syed Abdul Khader Saheb. It is the case of the
petitioners that the original owner made an application for
construction and the District Collector vide Letter No.F4/9865/82
has granted NOC dated 19.01.1983 for the lands in Sy.No.129/55 as
patta land. It is stated that after commencement of Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “ULC Act“), one
Balwanth Singh and Sardar Devender Singh have filed statements in
3
Form-I under Section 6(1) of the Act, declaring certain properties
held by them in Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration viz., Premises
bearing No.5-1-318, admeasuring 106.59 sq.mtrs, situated at
Gowliguda, Premises bearing No.14-11-805/1 to 805/7 admeasuring
123.18 sq.mtrs situated at Shah Inayath Gunj, land admeasuring
12,809.05 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet
Village, Banjara Hills, Premises bearing No.8-2-1/B admeasuring
555.11 sq.mtrs, situated at Punjagutta. It is further case of the
petitioners that as per the enquiry report, out of the total land
admeasuring 3500 sq.yards held by Balwanth Singh in
Sy.No.129/55, an extent of 2125.00 sq.yards was sold to Sardar
Prahlad Singh on 24.12.1965, leaving the balance land to an extent
of 1375 sq.yards. It is stated that declarant Balwanth Singh
purchased another land admeasuring 14020 sq.yards in
Sy.No.129/55 on 27.07.1966. The entire area held by the declarant
is 14020 sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards i.e, 15395 sq.yards (12871
sq.mtrs). Acting on the said enquiry report, the respondent No.2 has
issued proceedings No.E1/9131 and 9132/2004 dated 30.10.2004
stating that after verification of the draft statement under Section
8(1) and notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, determined the surplus
area to an extent of 11,871 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 (deducted land
to an extent of 1,000 sq.mtrs under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act) and
directed the declarant to file objections within 30 days. It is further
4
case of the petitioners that the declarant Balwanth Singh while filing
draft statement in Form-I under Section 6(1) of the Act, in CC
No.E/9131/1976 has categorically mentioned that the land in
Sy.No.129/55 is under dispute. It is stated that the declarations
have been finalized based on the entries in the revenue records and
Town Survey Land Records (TSLR), as well as the recitals in the sale
deeds under which the declarant claimed to have purchased the
lands in Sy.No.129/55. However, the said sale deeds were already
held to be invalid in law, as per the judgment rendered in Prahlad
Singh vs. Syed Ali Musa Raza and others 1 wherein the title of the
declarant was specifically negatived. It is further case of the
petitioners that without taking into consideration of the said facts,
the respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.E1/9131/1976 and
E1/9132/1976 declared the land to an extent of 11,871 sq.mtrs in
Sy.No.129/55 as excess land including the schedule property owned
by the petitioners in Sy.No.129/55 computing the said land on the
declaration of the Balwanth Singh.
7. It is further case of the petitioners that the land in
Sy.No.129/55 to an extent of Ac.3-26 gts is grabbed by Sardar
Balwanth Singh and Sardar Prahlad Singh by constructing houses,
which were assessed to the Municipal numbers. Questioning the
1
1997 (3) ALT 562
5
said action of the declarants, it is stated that the vendors of the
petitioners instituted a suit vide O.S.No.331/1980 on the file of
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking to grant
decree of possession of the land admeasuring 2125 sq.yards. It is
stated that the said suit was decreed on 15.01.1983 and questioning
the same, an appeal vide CCCA No.70 of 1983 came to be filed by
Sardar Prahlad Singh against the petitioners vendors and the same
was dismissed on 27.02.1997. Aggrieved by the dismissal of said
appeal, the Sardar Prtahlad Singh filed LPA No.23 of 1997 on the file
of this Court and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated
28.02.2002. The legal heirs of Sardar Prahlad Singh filed S.L.P
(Civil) No.23359 of 2002 on the file of Hon’ble Supreme Court and
the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.11.2002.
8. It is stated that seeking implementation of the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.331/1980, Syed Ali Musa Rasa, and others
(legal heirs of the original pattadar i.e, Syed Abbul Khader Saheb)
filed E.P.No.67 of 2003 and the same was allowed vide order dated
29.03.2004 directing the judgment debtors to handover the
possession and demolish the existing structures and in pursuance of
the same, the possession was delivered to petitioners vendors on
18.02.2005. Questioning the same, a revision vide Civil Revision
Petition No.2526 of 2004 was filed and the same was dismissed by
6
this Court vide order dated 25.04.2005. It is stated that Sardar
Prahlad Singh, filed E.A.No.13 of 2005 and the same was dismissed
on 12.04.2005. Questioning the same, the legal heirs of Prahlad
Singh filed CRP No.2699 of 2005 and the same was dismissed on
22.06.2005 as infructuous. It is stated that after the litigation
attained finality, the petitioners purchased the subject property of
the writ petition under registered sale deeds vide document Nos.4788
and 4798 of 2005 dated 27.07.2005 from the legal heirs of the
original pattadar Syed Abdul Khader Saheb. Thus the petitioners are
claiming that they are interested in the subject lands and effected by
the impugned proceedings dated 06.03.2006 issued by the
respondent No.2. Hence the writ petition.
9. On 22.07.2008, this Court while admitting the writ petition,
granted interim order in W.P.M.P.No.20399 of 2008 directing both
the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date.
10. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter affidavit on
08.09.2010 inter alia stating that the respondent No.2 has declared
Sardar Balwanth Singh (died per L.Rs Smt Tripati Kaur and others)
as surplus land holders to an extent of 11,871 Sq.Mts. in
Sy.No.129/55 and issued orders under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act,
vide proceedings Nos.E1/9131/76 and E1/9132/76, dt.8-03-2006
directing the Enquiry Officer to take over possession of surplus land
7
and hand over the same to the jurisdiction officer i.e, respondent
No.4-Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal. Accordingly the Enquiry Officer
has taken over possession of the land covered by structures and
open land and handed over the same to the Deputy Tahsildar,
Shaikpet Mandal, under cover of panchanama on 07-05-2008 and
since then the said land is in the possession of Government.
11. The respondent No.2 filed W.V.M.P.No.4894 of 2010 on
23.09.2010 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 22.07.2008
passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.20399 of 2008. This Court vide
order dated 15.11.2010 dismissed the said application, which reads
as follows:
“The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of an extent of 434
sq. yds., and 800 sq. yds., of land situated in Sy.No.129/55 (revised
Sy.No.165) part of TS Nos.2, 3 & 4, Ward No.11, Block ‘D’, Shaikpet
Village, Hyderabad. They claim to have purchased the said land from
the original owners, viz., Syed Ale Hassan and 12 others, under a
registered sale deed dated 27.07.2005 vide document Nos.4788 of 2005
& 4798 of 2005. Earlier the title in respect of the said land was stated to
have been set up by one Sardar Balwanth Singh, who allegedly lost the
title suit against the vendors of the writ petitioners. The impugned notice
dated 6.03.2006 issued under Section 10 (5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) shows that enquiry was
conducted with reference to the holding of Sardar Balwanth Singh. It is
the case of the petitioners that the said person having lost his title has
nothing to do with the proceedings initiated under the Act and as such
the petitioners cannot claim to have held excess land.
This Court while admitting the writ petition by order dated
22.07.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.20399 of 2008 directed the parties to
maintain status quo obtaining as on that day.
The petitioners claim that they have been in continuous possession
and enjoyment of the aforesaid land while the learned Government
Pleader submits that the surplus land was taken possession by the
enquiry officer pursuant to the notice dated 6.03.2006, on 7.05.2008 and
therefore submits that the status quo orders need not be continued.
8
Prima facie, it appears that the proceedings under the Act were
initiated with reference to the claim of Sardar Balwanth Singh, who does
not appear to have anything to do with the aforesaid land of the
petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed, it has not been stated in what
manner the possession was taken over and from whom. It does not even
refer as to whether the possession was taken over under a cover of any
panchanama. Having regard to the same, I am not inclined to vacate the
interim orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.20399 of 2008, dated 22.07.2008.
Accordingly, the interim order is made absolute and the W.V.M.P. is
dismissed.”
12. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed additional counter affidavit on
29.10.2021 inter alia stating that Sardar Balwanth Singh & Sardar
Devdar Singh filed statements in Form-I under Section 6(1) of ULC
Act, declaring the properties held by him viz., 1) H.No.5-1-318,
admeasuring 106.59 sq.mtrs situated at Gowliga, 2) 14-11-805/1 to
805/7 admeasuring 123.18 sq.mtrs situated at Shah Inayath Gunj,
3) land admeasuring 12809.05 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 (old
Sy.No.165) situated at Banjara Hills and 4) H.No.8-2-1/B
admeasuring 555.11 sq.mtrs situated at Panjagutta. It is further
stated that declarant Balwanth Singh expired on 03.02.2004 leaving
behind Smt. Tripat Kaur and four others as L.Rs. It is also stated
that total land held by declarants is 14,083.92 sq.mtrs out of which
an extent of 1,212.92 sq.mtrs is protected under Section 4(11) of
Principal Act. The vacant land held by the declarant is 12,871
Sq.Mtrs, of which he is entitled to hold an extent of 1,000 Sq.Mtrs
only under Section 4(1)(B) of the ULC Act, 1976, and thus an extent
of 11,871 Sq.Mtrs was declared as surplus and a draft statement
under Section 8(1) of the Act was issued vide proceedings dated
9
30.10.2004. The legal heirs of the deceased declarant filed a letter
dated 06.11.2004 expressing no objection to the proposed surplus
land, leading to confirmation of the draft statement under Sections
8(4) and final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act vide
proceedings dated 10.11.2004. The declaration under Section 10(1)
was issued on 07.01.2005 and published in Gazette No.16 dated
20.01.2005. The final declaration under Section 10(3) was issued
and published in Gazette No.27 dated 01.02.20005. Subsequently,
notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 16.01.2006 directing the
declarants to surrender the surplus land. Upon failure to comply,
proceedings under Section 10(6) were initiated on 06.03.2006 and
the Enquiry Officer took possession of the land on 16.03.2006, which
was formally handed over to the Deputy Tahsildar, Shaikpet, under a
cover of Panchanama on 07.05.2008. Since then, the land is in
possession of the Government. It is further stated that the subject
land, forming part of the declarant’s Form-I under Section 6(1), is
part of the total declared extent of 14,083.92 Sq.Mtrs, out of which
1,212.92 Sq.Mtrs was protected under Section 4(11), leaving 12,871
Sq.Mtrs as vacant land. It is further stated that during the entire
ULC proceedings, neither the petitioners nor their vendors, filed any
declaration or objections. The sale deeds relied upon by the
petitioners, bearing document Nos.4788 and 4798 of 2005 dated
27.07.2005, were executed during the operation of the ULC Act,
10
1976 and without obtaining permission under Section 26, thereby
rendering the transactions void under Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the
ULC Act. The petitioners thus have no locus standi to assail the ULC
proceedings, which were concluded lawfully and possession was
taken over prior to the enactment of the Repeal Act, 1999 and
accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
13. Considered the submissions of Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior
Counsel, for Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment
appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
14. Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners contended that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.15746 of
2008 and petitioner in W.P.No.15807 of 2008 (mother of petitioner
No.1 in W.P.No.15746 of 2008) have purchased open lands
admeasuring 434 sq.yards, 800 sq.yards and 1190 sq.yards
respectively, in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) part of T.S.Nos.2, 3 &
4, Ward No.11, Block ‘D’, situated at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad,
under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4788/2005,
4798/2005 and 4797/2005 dated 27.07.2005 from their vendors i.e,
Sayed Ale Hassan and 12 others (legal heirs of Syed Abdul Khader
Saheb) and their predecessor-in-interest, who were absolute owners
over the said property. It is submitted that when the disputes arose
11
with regard to the title over the property belonging to the
predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, a suit vide O.S.No.331 of
1980 was instituted on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad and the same was decreed vide judgment and
decree dated 15.01.1983 and the matter was carried to this Court
vide CCCA No.70 of 1983 and the same was dismissed vide judgment
dated 27.02.2007 and thereafter, an appeal vide LPA No.23/1997
was filed and the same was also dismissed by this Court vide
judgment dated 28.02.2002. Challenging the same, S.L.P (C)
No.23359 of 2002 was filed and the same was dismissed as
withdrawn on 20.12.2002 and the litigation attained finality. The
learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Enquiry Officer of
the office of respondent No.2 in his report dated 13.09.2004 stated
that the declarant-Balwanth Singh purchased the land to an extent
of 3500 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village
from Agaiah S/o.Pochaiah vide document No.1545/1965 dated
25.10.1965 and out of the said land, an extent of 2125 sq.yards was
disposed of by the declarant to Sardar Prahlad Singh vide document
No.3053/65 dated 24.12.1965 leaving the balance land to an extent
of 1375 sq.yards is in possession of Balwanth Singh. Subsequently,
the declarant further purchased land admeasuring 14020 sq.yards
in Sy.No.129/55 on 27.07.1966 and the area covered by structures
of third parties, roads and some open land. Hence the entire area
12
allegedly held by the declarant is 14,020 sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards =
15,395 sq.yards (12,871 sq.mtrs). While deducting the land to an
extent of 1000 sq.mtrs under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, it was
declared that the declarant holds excess land to an extent of
11,871.00 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet
Village in excess of ceiling limit. It is contended that the Enquiry
Officer has not considered the statutory stipulations and
mechanically conducted the enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry
report was confirmed by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings
Nos.E1/9131/2004 and E1/9132/2004 dated 30.10.2004. It is
further submitted that the respondent No.2 passed an order dated
06.03.2006 under Section 10(6) of ULC Act declaring land
admeasuring 11,871 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 allegedly owned by
Balwant Singh as excess land. It is contended that the property
owned by the petitioners in Sy.No.129/55 was erroneously declared
as excess land in the proceedings. It is further contended that in the
impugned proceedings, it was clearly stated that the area is covered
by structures of third parties, roads and some open lands, which
implies that the declarant is not in possession of the property as on
the date of conducting enquiry by the Enquiry Officer and the excess
land declared by the respondent No.2 is different and distinct from
the property purchased by the petitioners. It is further contended
that as per the judgment in O.S.No.331/1980, it was declared that
13
the Sardar Balwanth Singh and Sardar Prahlad Singh had no right
over the property admeasuring 2125 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 and
findings recorded by the trial Court has attained finality with the
dismissal of SLP (Civil) No.23359 of 2002. It is further contended
that the respondents having found that the petitioner is in
possession of the property, did not issue any notice as required
under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Rules, 1976 (for short “ULC Rules”) to the affected
parties who are in possession of the property. Due to non-following of
the mandatory procedure, any statement prepared under Section 10
of the ULC Act and publication of the notification and vesting of the
land under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act is invalid. Thus the learned
Senior Counsel prayed this Court to allow the writ petitions by
setting aside the impugned proceedings.
15. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment
appearing for the respondents contended that after verification of the
declaration filed under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, a draft
notification under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act was issued vide
Proceedings dated 30.10.2004 and as no objections were received, a
final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act was prepared on
10.11.2004 and thereafter, proceedings under Section 10(1) was
issued on 07.01.2004 and published in Gazette No.16 dated
14
20.01.2005. Subsequently declaration under Section 10(3) of the
ULC Act, was issued on 01.02.2005 and the same was published in
Gazette No.27 dated 01.02.2005 and thereafter, notice under Section
10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 16.01.2006 to the legal heirs of
declarant i.e, Late Balwant Singh to surrender the surplus land to an
extent of 11871 sq.mtrs within the stipulated period and when
possession was not surrendered, Section 10(6) proceedings were
issued on 06.03.2006 and possession was taken over under cover of
panchanama on 07.05.2008. The learned Government Pleader
placing reliance on Section 10(3) of ULC Act, submitted that after
publication of declaration under Section 10(3) of ULC Act, the excess
land vested with the Government, absolutely free from all
encumbrances. It is further submitted that in the absence of filing
any objections to the proceedings under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act,
neither the petitioners nor their vendors are entitled to question the
proceedings under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act or Section 10(6) of
the ULC Act, which are consequential. Since the possession was
taken prior to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 (for short “Repeal Act, 1999”) came into force, neither the
petitioners nor their vendors or the declarants are entitled for benefit
under Section 3 of Repeal Act, 1999 adopted by the-then State of
Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 27.03.2008 vide G.O.Ms.No.603 (Revenue)
(UCI) Department dated 22.04.2008. Thus the writ petitions filed by
15
the petitioners are misconceived and prayed for dismissal of the
same.
16. In reply to the above submissions,, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners would maintain that as per the
proceedings dated 30.10.2004, the third parties are in possession of
the excess land. It is further submitted that in implementation of the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.331/1980, the Executing
Court in E.P.No.67 of 2003 has delivered the possession to the
petitioners vendors on 18.06.2005. It is also submitted that the
respondents have not placed any record before this Court furnishing
the particulars of the alleged panchanama. Since there is no proof,
the contention of the respondents that they have taken physical
possession of subject property cannot be accepted. It is further
submitted that mere vesting of the land under Section 10(3) of the
ULC Act does not confer any right to claim de facto possession of the
vacant land. It is further contended that since the State has failed to
establish that possession of the vacant land was either voluntarily
surrendered under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act or taken by way of
forcible dispossession under Section 10(6), it is estopped from
asserting any right over the subject property. Consequently, the
landowner is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal
Act. It is further contended that it is settled preposition of law that
16
mere paper possession is not sufficient to vest the land in the State
and the same shall not divest the petitioners right and prayed for
allowing the writ petitions.
17. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the respective
counsel, it is necessary to examine some of the relevant provisions of
the ULC Act, 1976. Section 2 of the ULC Act, deals with definitions
and some of the definitions are extracted hereunder.
(i) “person” includes an individual, a family, a firm, a company, or an
association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not;
(l) “to hold” with its grammatical variations, in relation to any vacant land
means–
(i) to own such land; or
(ii) to possess such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or
under an irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire-purchase
agreement or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other
of the said capacity or capacities.
Explanation.–Where the same vacant land is held by one person in one
capacity and by another person in another capacity, then, for the
purposes of this Act, such land shall be deemed to be held by both such
persons.
18. Further, Section 3 of the Act, states that except as otherwise
provided in the Act, on and from the commencement of the Act, no
person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the
ceiling limit in the territories to which the Act applies under sub-
section (2) of Section 1. Section 4 of the Act prescribes Ceiling limit
of every person. Section 6 of the Act, which deals with persons
17
holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit to file statement, reads
as under:
“Section 6 – Persons holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit to file
statement
(1) Every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the
commencement of this Act shall, within such period as may be
prescribed, file a statement before the competent authority having
jurisdiction specifying the location, extent, value and such other
particulars as may be prescribed 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 him (including the nature of his right, title or interest
therein) and also specifying the vacant lands within the ceiling limit
which he desires to retain :
Provided that in relation to any State to which this Act applies in the first
instance, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the
words “Every person who hold vacant land in excess of ceiling limit at
the commencement of this Act”, the words, figures and letters “Every
person which vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit on or after the
17th day of February, 1975 and before the commencement of this Act
and every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at
such commencement” had been substituted.”
19. A conjoint reading of the definition of “person” under Section
2(i) of the ULC Act, 1976 and the provisions of Section 6 of the said
Act makes it clear that any person holding vacant land in excess of
the ceiling limit must file a statement before the competent authority
specifying the location, extent, and particulars of such lands,
including the nature of the right or interest therein. The expression
“person” includes individuals and entities holding such land in
various legal capacities, including as owner, tenant, mortgagee,
under irrevocable power of attorney, or under a hire-purchase
agreement. In the present case, the declarants, while filing the
statement in Form-I have categorically mentioned in Annexure-A that
18
the land in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village as “the
land is under dispute in High Court”. In the Proceedings dated
30.10.2004, it is stated that out of 3500 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55
(old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village purchased from Agaiah
S/o.Pochaiah vide document No.1545/1965 dated 25.10.1965, an
extent of 2125 sq.yards was disposed of by the declarant to Sardar
Prahlad Singh vide document No.3053/65 dated 24.12.1965 leaving
the balance land to an extent of 1375 sq.yards in possession of
Balwanth Singh. Further, the declarant Balwanth Singh has
purchased land to an extent of 14020 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 on
27.07.1966 and the area is covered by structures of third parties,
roads and some open land. Hence the entire area held by the
declarant i.e, 14020 sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards = 15395 sq.yards
(12871 sq.mtrs). Acting on the enquiry report, the respondent No.2
has issued proceedings Nos.E1/9131 and 9132/2004 dated
30.10.2004 under section 8(1) of the Act observing that the total land
held by the declarant is 14083.92 sq.mtrs out of which an extent of
1212.92 sq.mtrs is protected under Section 4(11) of the Act and the
vacant land held by the declarant is 12,871.00 sq.mtrs, out of which
he is entitled to held 1,000 sq.mtrs under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act.
Thus it was declared that the declarant holds the land to an extent of
11871.00 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.165 (old), 129/55 (new) of Shaikpet
Village in excess of ceiling limit. The case of the petitioners is that
19
their vendors and their predecessor-in-interest Syed Abdul Khader
Saheb is the pattadar of the land in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) to
an extent of Ac.3.26 gts and his name was recorded in the revenue
records and the said Sy.No.129/55 was assigned new survey number
under the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. When
the disputes arose with regard to the right and title over the land
admeasuring 2125 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55, a suit for possession
vide O.S.No.331/1980 was instituted by the petitioners vendors
claiming absolute ownership and after contest, the said suit was
decreed vide judgment dated 15.01.1983. Aggrieved by the same,
Sardar Prahlad Singh filed CCCA No.70 of 1983 on the file of this
Court and after contest, the same was dismissed vide judgment
dated 27.02.1997. Challenging the same, LPA No.23 of 1997 was
preferred and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated
28.02.2022, wherein it was observed that Prahlad Singh, who claims
to have purchased the property from the Sardar Balwant Singh (the
declarant) is not title holder of the land in Sy.No.129/55 (old
Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet village and consequently, declared that the
petitioners vendors and their predecessors-in-interest are the
absolute owners of the suit schedule land and entitled for delivery of
possession. The said findings have attained finality in view of the
dismissal of SLP (C) No.23359 of 2002 vide orders dated 20.11.2002.
The petitioners vendors also filed E.P.No.67 of 2003 seeking
20
execution of the judgment and decree dated 15.01.1983 passed in
O.S.No.331 of 1980. In execution proceedings, the possession of the
land claimed by the petitioners i.e, suit schedule property i.e, portion
of Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165), to an extent of 2125 sq.yards out of
3500 sq.yards was delivered to the petitioners. The suit was initially
decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.1983. The
proceedings emanated from the suit have attained finality by delivery
of possession to the petitioners vendors. Even before issuance of the
notification under Section 10(3) of the Act dated 01.02.2005, the
E.P.No.67 of 1993 was allowed on 29.03.2004 for delivery of
possession to the petitioners vendors. In pursuance of the orders
passed in E.P, the possession of the property was delivered vide
panchanama dated 18.06.2005. The respondents acting on the
alleged declaration have issued notice under Section 10(5) of the Act
on 16.01.2006 for delivery of possession by the declarant who lost
the title in civil battle before all the forums. Thereafter, it is stated
that Section 10(6) notice was issued on 06.03.2006 and the alleged
possession was taken over under cover of panchanama on
07.05.2008. The subject properties claimed by the petitioners were
delivered to their vendors much prior to the issuance of the notices
under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, in execution proceedings. A
careful scrutiny of the declaration order reveals that the declarant is
a stranger to the subject properties purchased by the petitioners
21
under registered sale deeds. Therefore, the respondents, while acting
upon such a declaration, are not having any power to include the
petitioners’ lands as part of the declarant’s holding or to declare
them as surplus under the said proceedings.
20. Further, it is seen from the record that except stating in
additional counter affidavit, the respondents have not proved the
alleged taking over of possession of subject lands under Section 10(6)
of the Act on 07.05.2008. The sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 states that the
draft statement shall be served together with the notice referred to in
sub-section (3) of Section 8, on the holder of the vacant lands, and
all other persons, so far as may be known, who have, or are likely to
have, any claim to, 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. A perusal of the Proceedings
Nos.E1/9131 and 9132/2004 dated 30.10.2004 issued by the
respondent No.2 would manifest that no notice whatsoever has been
issued to the persons interested found to be in possession in
pursuance of the orders dated 29.03.2004 in E.P.No.67 of 2003.
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in A.P. Electrical Equipment
Corporation vs. Tahsildar and others 2 observed as follows:
2
2025 INSC 274
22“41. The propositions of law governing the issue of possession in context
with Sections 10(5) and 10(6) respectively of the Act, 1976 read with
Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 may be summed up thus:
[1] The Repeal Act, 1999 clearly talks about the possession being taken
under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, as the case may be.
[2] It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent authority or the
State to take possession strictly as permitted in law.
[3] In case the possession is purported to have been taken under Section
10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged to look into whether
“taking of such possession” is valid or invalidated on any of the
considerations in law.
[4] The possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is
de facto and not de jure only.
[5] The mere vesting of “land declared surplus” under the Act without
resuming “de facto possession” is of no consequence and the land holder
is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.
[6] The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of
Section 10 respectively is mandatory. Although the word “may” has been
used therein, yet the word “may” in both the sub-sections should be
understood as “shall” because a Court is obliged to decide the
consequences that the legislature intended to follow from the failure to
implement the requirement.
[7] The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (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 18th March 1999.
[8] The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record that there has
been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of
peaceful possession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 or forceful
dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10.”
22. In State of U.P vs. Hari Ram 3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
observed as follows:
“39. The mere vesting of the land under Sub-section (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 18.3.1999. State has to establish that3
AIR 2013 SC 1793
23there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and
delivery of peaceful possession under Sub-section (5) of Section 10 or
forceful dispossession under Sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to
establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the
benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this
appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High
Court is right in holding that the Respondent is entitled to get the benefit
of Section 3 of the Repeal Act.”
23. “Any person” as defined under the ULC Act for filing
declaration under Section 6, has to be read in conjunction with the
holding of the vacant land, who owns land or possess as such land
as owner or as a tenant or as a mortgagee or under any irrevocable
power of attorney or under a hire-purchase agreement or partly in
one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the said capacity
or capacities. Admittedly, in the instant case, while filing declaration
Late Sardar Balwanth Singh stated that “the land is under dispute”.
Further, in the Proceedings dated 30.10.2004, it was recorded that
the declarant Sardar Balwanth Singh disposed of an extent of 2125
sq.yards in favour of Sardar Prahlad Singh vide registered sale deed
vide document No.3053/65 dated 24.12.1965 leaving the balance
land to an extent of 1375 sq.yards in possession of Balwanth Singh.
It was also recorded that subsequently, the declarant purchased land
admeasuring 14020 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 on 27.07.1966 and
the area covered by structures of third parties, roads and some open
land. Hence the entire area allegedly held by the declarant is 14020
24
sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards = 15395 sq.yards (12871 sq.mtrs). While
deducting the land to an extent of 1000 sq.mtrs under Section 4(1)(b)
of the Act, it was declared that the declarant holds land to an extent
of 11,871.00 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet
Village in excess of ceiling limit. It may be noted that the respondent
No.2 while computing the holding of the declarant has excluded the
land admeasuring 2125 sq.yards said to have been sold by the
declarant Balwanth Singh to Sardar Prahlad Singh vide document
No.3053/65 dated 24.12.1965 leaving the balance of 1375 sq.yards
which was in possession of Balwanth Singh. Further, the Sardar
Balwanth Singh and Sardar Prahlad Singh were declared as not title
holders over the land to an extent of 2125 sq.yards and the
petitioners vendors rights have been confirmed vide judgment and
decree in O.S.No.331 of 1980. The findings recorded in the said
judgment were confirmed in CCCA No.70 of 1983 vide judgment
dated 27.02.2007. The appeal filed vide LPA No.23/1997 was also
dismissed vide judgment dated 28.02.2002. Challenging the same,
SLP (C) No.23359 of 2002 was filed and the same was dismissed as
withdrawn on 20.12.2002 and the litigation attained finality. The
E.P.No.67 of 2003 filed by the petitioners was allowed on
29.03.2004. Thereafter, the property was delivered to the petitioners
vendors by the Court Bailiff in E.P.No.67 of 2003 on 18.06.2005. The
petitioners have purchased the property under registered sale deeds
25
bearing document Nos.4788/2005, 4798/2005 and 4797/2005
dated 27.07.2005. The respondents except claiming that the
properties vested in the State under Section 10(3) of the Act, have
not issued any notice to the petitioners or their vendors before taking
alleged possession nor made available any record to establish that de
facto possession of the subject lands was taken over by following due
procedure.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed
and the impugned Proceedings Nos.E1/9131/1976 and
E1/9132/1976 dated 06-03-2006 issued under Section 10(6) of the
ULC Act, in respect of petitioners lands admeasuring 434 sq.yards,
800 sq.yards and 1190 sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No.165)
part of T.S.Nos.2, 3 & 4, Ward No.11, Block ‘D’, situated at Shaikpet
Village, Hyderabad, are set aside.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions
shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 23.04.2025
scs
[ad_2]
Source link