[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Smt.C.Upadesh Kumari W/O C.Ramesh … vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.24851 and 20563 of 2015
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioner and the respondents in these two writ petitions
are one and the same and the issue involved in both these writ
petitions arises out of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 (for short ‘the Act’) and in respect of the same property,
hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. WP.No.20563 of 2015 is filed to declare the action of the
respondent No.3 – Tahsildar, Saidabad, Hyderabad, in proceeding
with the construction in Plot No.2, admeasuring 620 sq. yards in
Sy.No.212, Vinayak Nagar Colony, Champapet Road, Saidabad
Mandal, Hyderabad (subject property) as being arbitrary and illegal
and to declare action of the respondents No.1 to 4 in not
considering the application of the petitioner for regularization of the
plot in terms of G.O.Ms.No.727 Revenue (UC-1) Department dated
18.06.2008, though proposals have been submitted twenty three
months back and even after payment of regularization amount of
Rs.16,30,200/- as being arbitrary and illegal.
3. WP.No.24851 of 2015 is filed to call for records relating to
the impugned proceedings No.J2/9225/76 dated 05.09.2007 and
panchanama dated 08.02.2008 of the respondent No.4 in respect of
the subject property and quash the same as illegal, improper and
2
violative of Section 10(5) of the Act and Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
4. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject property
having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing
document No.1401/1978 dated 17.05.1978 from the Government
Press Employees Co-operative House Building Society (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Housing Society’) and since then, the petitioner had
been in possession of the subject property. The Housing Society
purchased the property from the original owners/pattadars.
The petitioner applied for building permission in the year 2010 with
the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The corporation insisted
the petitioner to get NOC from the Revenue Authorities. In the year
2011 when application was filed before the respondent No.2 for
grant of NOC, for the purpose of building permission, it was
processed by the respondent No.3 and proposal dated 17.01.2011
was sent to the District Collector stating that the subject land is a
private patta land. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued
endorsement No.E2/50/2011 dated 28.02.2011 informing the
petitioner that subject property is surplus land and therefore, the
application of the petitioner is rejected by the concerned
committee. The respondent No.2 also informed the GHMC that the
subject plot is declared as surplus and directed them not to issue
building permission to the petitioner.
3
5. It is submitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.747
dated 18.06.2008 for regularization of surplus ceiling land in
occupation of third parties on collection of market value of the land.
In terms thereof, the petitioner submitted application dated
05.09.2013 by duly paying Rs.16,30,000/- through DD No.066827
dated 05.09.2013 drawn on ICICI Bank towards regularization
charges. The respondent No.4 acknowledged the application of the
petitioner and submitted proposals to the Government. In the
meanwhile, the respondent No.3 tried to occupy the subject
property and the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Minister for
Revenue, on 24.01.2014, who made an endorsement directing the
respondent No.2 to stop construction activity pending consideration
of regularization application under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated
18.06.2008. The respondent No.2 also directed the respondent
No.4 to place the matter in the next meeting in his endorsement
dated 27.01.2014. The respondent No.2 further directed the
respondent No.3 not to take up any construction work. As there
was no information regarding the petitioner’s regularization
application, a representation dated 18.06.2014 was submitted by
the petitioner to the Government to direct the respondent No.2 to
stop the construction activity. Thereafter, another representation
was made to the District Collector, Hyderabad, on 04.08.2014.
4
6. It is stated that counter was filed by the respondents No.2
and 3 in WP.No.20563 of 2015 wherein it is contended that the
possession of the subject land was taken under Section 10(6) of the
Act under the cover of panchanama dated 08.02.2008. Hence,
Section 10(6) notice dated 05.09.2007 and panchanama dated
08.02.2008 are challenged in WP.No.24851 of 2015.
7. In the separate counters filed by the respondents No.3 and 4
in WP.No.24851 of 2015, it is contended that the petitioner, having
filed regularization application accepting the ownership of the
Government, cannot challenge the proceedings in CC.No.J/9225/76.
The writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. The possession
of the surplus land was taken by completing the formalities under
the Act. One Sama Bal Reddy was the owner and the declarant of
the land in Sy.Nos.212, 213 and 214 of Saidabad Village. He filed
declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act and he was determined as
surplus land owner to an extent of 6416.96 sq. meters of land in
Sy.Nos.212, 213 and 214. The surplus land was taken over under
the cover of panchanama on 08.02.2008 pursuant to Section 10(6)
notice. The subject property of the petitioner is part of the surplus
land. The alleged sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner in
the year 1978 is void under Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act.
5
8. In the counters, it is further submitted that the regularization
application filed by the petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated
18.06.2008 is under consideration. The land vested with the State.
The application for grant of NOC submitted by the petitioner for
building permission was rejected. The writ petitioner is a stranger
and she is not entitled to challenge the ULC proceedings against
Sama Bala Reddy. The petitioner is trying to make unlawful claim
over the subject property taking advantage of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The subject property has
been reserved for public purpose i.e. construction of office building
of the Tahsildar, Saidabad Mandal, as per the District Collector
Proceedings No.A5/8759/2013 dated 19.06.2013. The petitioner
submitted regularization application subsequent to allotment of the
subject property for public purpose. The construction of the
Tahsildar office was also commenced and completed.
9. Mr. K.G. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel, appearing
on behalf of Mr. K. Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the impugned ULC proceedings are null
and void as they are issued against a dead person. The possession
of the surplus plan was not taken over in accordance with the Act.
Notice to the possessor is mandatory under Section 10(5) of the
Act. The petitioner purchased the subject property under sale deed
dated 17.05.1978. The petitioner was not issued any notice.
6
Thus, the subject property is saved in terms of Section 3 of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which came
into effect in the State of Andhra Pradesh from 27.03.2008.
10. Mr. Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for
Assignment, submitted that the petitioner is stranger to the ULC
proceedings in CC.No.J2/9225/76, which were declared by Sama
Bal Reddy. The alleged sale deed of the petitioner executed in the
year 1978 is hit by Section 5(3) and Section 10(4) of the Act.
The petitioner does not have locus stand to challenge the ULC
proceedings. The petitioner admitted ownership of the Government
and vesting of land in the Government by filing regularization
application under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008. The land was
allotted for construction of Tahsildar Office and the construction is
completed. Presently, the Tahsildar Office is being run in the
subject property.
11. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader for Assignment.
12. On a perusal of the record, it appears that the statement in
Form I under Section 6(1) of the Act was filed by Sama Bal Reddy
declaring an extent of 6120.89 sq. meters in Sy.Nos.212 to 214 to
Saidabad Village and Mandal and an extent of 1296.05
sq. meters in Vacant Plot in Ward-17, Block-2, Madannapet Village,
7
total extent of 7416.94 sq. meters. The draft statement under
Section 8(1) of the Act was prepared and notice under Section 8(3)
dated 03.10.1978 of the Act was stated to have been issued to the
declarant. As objections were not filed by the declarant within thirty
days, final statement under Section 9 of the Act dated 24.12.1980
was issued and thereafter, notices under Section 10(1), 10(3),
10(5) and 10(6) were issued on 06.03.1986, 06.05.1986,
29.05.1986 and 16.07.1986 respectively. As per the orders of the
appellate authority dated 26.12.1996 in C.No.UC1/2011/86, the
final statement under Section 9 of the Act and notices under
Section 10(1), 10(3) 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act have been set
aside and respondent No.4 was directed to issue speaking order
under Section 8(4) of the Act after fresh examination. Thereafter,
the respondent No.4 has taken up the matter for fresh personal
hearing by issuing notices to the declarant fixing the date of
hearing on 20.03.2006. The said notice was stated to have been
served on the brother of the declarant, Sri Damodar Reddy on
17.03.2006. Further, when the matter was taken up for hearing on
20.03.2006, nobody was present.
13. It is stated that the respondent No.4 was informed by the
Enquiry Officer that the declarant died and his son, Sri Narasimha
Reddy, refused to take notice and as such, the notice was affixed
on the door of the declarant on 25.03.2006. The case was called on
8
27.03.2006. There was no representation and the matter was
adjourned to 12.04.2006 but no one was present on behalf of the
declarant on the said date. The notice of hearing was once again
served on the brother of the declarant apart from affixing it on the
door of the residential premises of the legal representative of the
declarant, as the legal representative refused to take the notice in
spite of intimation of hearing. Despite the same, they have not
represented the case. Thus, the matter was decided on the material
available on record.
14. By order dated 21.08.2006 passed under Section 8(4) of the
Act, it was held that the declarant had landed property to an extent
of 6120.89 sq. meters in Sy.Nos.212 to 214, Saidabad Village and
vacant plot to an extent of 1296.05 sq. meters in Ward No.17,
Block-2, Madannapet village, total admeasuring 7416.94 sq.
meters; the two villages are situated in the core area of Hyderabad
Urban Agglomeration and the declarant is entitled to retain an
extent of 1000 sq. meters under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act;
since the declared expired, his legal representatives were brought
on record for the purpose of service of notice and orders etc.;
after allowing 1000 sq. meters retainable land, Sama Bal Reddy,
died per LR, was declared as surplus holder for the balance area of
6416.94 sq. meters under Section 8(4) of the Act and final notice
was issued to the declarant.
9
15. The primary contention of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner is that the notice under Section 9 of the Act, after Section
8(4) order dated 21.08.2006 was passed, was not served on the
legal representatives of the declarant. The order dated 21.08.2006
was passed against a dead person. The respondent No.4 was very
much aware that the declarant Sama Bal Reddy died before Section
8(4) order was passed.
16. It is evident from the order dated 21.08.2006 that the
respondent No.4 was informed by the Enquiry Officer that the
declarant died. It is stated in the said order that notice (notice of
hearing after remand) was sought to be served on the legal
representatives of the declarant and the brother of the declarant,
Damodar Reddy. Though the order dated 21.08.2006 says that the
legal representatives of Sama Bal Reddy are brought on record,
there is no evidence to that effect. In the copy of order dated
21.08.2006 annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondent No.4
in WP.No.24851 of 2015, there are no names of the legal
representatives of the declarant shown. The service of notice under
Section 9 on the legal representatives of Sama Bal Reddy does not
appear to have been made. The copy of the order dated 21.08.2006
is shown to have been marked to “Sri Sama Bal Reddy, Declarant
(died) per LR’s, R/o Champapet, Hyderabad.”
10
17. Upon the respondent No.4 knowing that the declarant died,
necessary enquiry should have been made and all the legal
representatives should have been brought on record. The enquiry
before Section 8(4) of the Act (surplus determination is done)
cannot be an empty formality. After remand of the matter,
as stated in para 12 above by the appellate authority by order
dated 26.12.1996, notice of hearing ought to have been issued to
the legal heirs of the original declarant in the manner provided
under the Act. The purpose of issuing notice to the declarant and
legal representatives was to enable them to file objections to
Section 8(1) draft order and resist declaration of land as surplus.
The manner in which the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the
Act has to be served is provided under Rule 5 of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976, which reads as under:
5. Particulars to be contained in draft statement as
regards vacant lands and manner of service of the
same. –
(1) Every draft statement prepared under sub-section (1) of
Section 8 shall contain the particulars specified in Form III.
(2) (a) The draft statement shall be served, together with
the notice referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 3, on-
(i) the holder of the vacant lands, and
(ii) all other persons, so far as maybe known, who
have, or are likely to have, any claim to, or interest in
the ownership or possession or both, of the vacant
lands-
11
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 persons at their last known
addresses.
(b) Where the draft statement and the notice are returned
as refused by the addressee, the same shall be deemed to
have been duly served on such person.
(c) Where the efforts to serve the draft statement and the
notice, on the holder of the vacant lands or, as the
case may be, any other person referred to in clause (a),
in the manner specified in that clause is not successful
for reasons other than the reason referred to in clause (b),
the draft statement and notice shall be served by affixing
copies of the same in a conspicuous place in the office of the
competent authority and also upon some conspicuous part
of the house (if any) in which the holder of the vacant lands
or as the case may be, the other person is known to have
last resided or carried on business or personally worked for
gain.
…
18. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the notice,
which was sought to be served on the legal representatives of the
declarant and the brother of the declarant, is notice of hearing and
not notice under Section 8(3) of the Act for service of order under
Section 8(1) of the Act. Assuming that compliance of service of
notice of hearing was not required to be done in the manner
provided under Section 8(3) read with Rule 5 of the Rules, it is
12
relevant to note that service of final statement under Section 8(4)
in terms of Section 9 of the Act was to be made in the manner
provided under Section 8(3) of the Act. Section 9 of the Act reads
as under:
“9. After the disposal of the objections, if any, received
under subsection (4) of section 8, the competent authority
shall make the necessary alterations in the draft statement
in accordance with the orders passed on the objections
aforesaid and shall determine the vacant land held by the
person concerned in excess of the ceiling limit and cause a
copy of the draft statement as so altered to be served in the
manner referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8 on the
person concerned and where such vacant land is held under
a lease, or a mortgage, or a hire-purchase agreement, or an
irrevocable power of attorney, also on the owner of such
vacant land.
19. It is clear from the Rule 5 of the Rules that draft statement
under Section 8(1) of the Act shall be served to the holder of the
vacant land or all other persons interested and having claim over
the land in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act by sending the same
through registered post to the persons concerned to the address
given in Section 6(1) declaration or last known address. As per Rule
5(2)(b), if the notice is returned, then it is deemed to have served.
Rule 5(2)(c) provides that it notice of draft statement cannot be
served, then it should served by affixing a copy of the same in
conspicuous part of the house of the declarant or person interested.
The respondent No.4 did not adhere to the procedure contemplated
13
under Rule 5 of the Rules. It is not stated in the counter affidavit
whether notices were sent through registered post to the legal
representatives of the declarant. It is merely stated that notices
were affixed on the door of the declarant (house), as his son,
Narasimha Reddy, refused to take notice. That the notice was
served on the brother of the declarant by affixing it on the door of
the legal representative of the declarant for two times.
20. The appropriate step that should have been taken by the
respondent No.4 was to bring the legal representatives of the
declarant on record in CC.No.J2/9225/76 and thereafter, serve
notices in the manner provided under Rule 5 of the Rules. Without
issuing notice through registered post, as required under Rule
5(2)(a)(i) and (ii), the respondent No.4 resorted to serve notice by
affixing it on the residence of the legal heir of the declarant, as per
Rule 5(2)(c). It is not known how many legal heirs the declarant
had. It is not the case of the respondents that Narasimha Reddy
was the only legal heir of the declarant. The service of notice on the
brother of the declarant, Damodar Reddy, is of no use and
relevance. Apart from violation of the above procedure regarding
service of notice of hearing, there is no averment regarding service
of notice of final statement under Section 8(4) of the Act in terms
of Section 9 of the Act to all the legal representatives of the
declarant as required under Rule 5(2)(a)(ii). The counter affidavits
14
filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 are silent regarding service of
notice under Section 9 of the Act to the legal representatives of the
declarant.
21. This Court in MARABOINA YADAIAH V. STATE OF A.P. 1
held as under:
“9. A conjoint reading of Rule 5(2)(a) and sub-clauses therein
makes it very clear that notices should be issued to the
declarant through registered post to the address given by him
or last known address. Thus, it was imperative for the
authorities to find out proper address of the declarants. Service
of notice at the residential address of the declarants was
mandatory. Mere affixture of notice on the compound wall of
the subject property would not meet the requirement of the
above provisions. Even affixture of notice should have been on
the conspicuous part of the house and not any other place.
Only if the respondents were able to point out that even after
finding out proper address of the declarants, service of notice
through registered post was not possible, the next step was to
serve notice by affixture. However, without resorting to proper
procedure as mandated under Rule 5(2), the respondents,
allegedly, sent notice under Sections 6(2) and orders under
Section 8(1) and 8(4) of the Act to the declarants by affixture
on the wall of the subject property, which is not in accordance
with law.”
22. The Allahabad High Court in LALLAN V. STATE OF UP2 held
as under:
“7. In Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit the contents of
Paragraph 10 of the writ petition have been denied and it
has been asserted that the service was by affixation. There1
2023 (4) ALT 414
2
1988 SCC OnLine All 186
15is no specific averment with regard to the contention of the
petitioner that no notice was served through registered
post. The bare reading of Rule 5 quoted above would
indicate that the authorities should take recourse to service
through registered post first and if that attempt fails, the
service by affixation may be resorted to. Since the deponent
of the counter affidavit has not categorically denied the
allegations of the petitioner that no service was effected
upon the petitioner through registered post, I think that the
impugned order contained in Annexure-I has been passed
against the petitioner by the competent authority without
affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
Therefore, the aforesaid order is in clear contravention of
the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed.
8. The appellate authority has also confirmed the judgment
of the competent authority and on the question of service of
the draft statement on the petitioner it has made the
following observation: —
…..The provisions of Rule 5 are directory. In accordance
with the requirements of the said Rule, the notice was sent
to the appellant by registered post and it was only by
abundant caution that the second notice was given to him.
The contention regarding the notice has lost all force and
significance in view of the fact that the appellant filed an
objection dated March 27, 1982 before the competent
officer and challenged the notice under Section 10(5) and
Section 11(8) of the Act…….”
9. To my mind, the appellate court has wrongly assumed
that the notice was sent to the petitioner by registered post
and it was only by abundant caution that the second notice
was given to him. The averments in Paragraph 8 of the
counter affidavit indicate that no notice was sent by
registered post. It appears that the assertion was made in
16
the counter affidavit to that effect but it was second out
later on. Therefore, it is apparent that no notice was sent by
registered post.
10. The bare perusal of Rule 5(c) would indicate that the
service of the notice by affixation can be resorted to only
when an attempt for serving the person concerned through
registered post had failed. The observation of the lower
appellate court that Rule 5 is directory in the facts and
circumstances of the present case appears to me patently
erroneous. Since the notice upon the petitioner as
contemplated by Section 8(3) of the Act has not been
served strictly in accordance with law, therefore, the
impugned judgment contained in Annexure-I attached with
the writ petition deserves to be quashed. The judgment of
the appellate court contained in Annexure-Il attached with
the writ petition has also proceeded on wrong assumption
that the requisite notice was served upon the petitioner by
registered post, therefore, the impugned judgment of the
appellate court also deserves to be quashed.”
Section 8(4) order and Section 10(5) notice were issued in
the name of dead person:
23. As pointed out in the preceding paragraphs Section 8(4)
order dated 21.08.2006 was passed in the name of Sama Bal
Reddy, who died by then. However, it is stated in the order as
under:
“… Since the Declarant Late Sri Sama Bal Reddy expired his
LR’s are brought on record for the purpose of service of
Notices and orders etc.In view of the above, Late Sri Sama Bal Reddy died per LR
is allowed to retain 1000 Sq. Mts. U/s.4(1)(b) of the Act and
the balance area of 6416.94 (7416.94 – 1000 = 6416.94) is
17determined as excess land held by the Declarant U/s.8(4) of
the Act.
Accordingly, final notice U/s.9 of the Act is issued to service
on the Declarant (died) per LR’s.
…
Sd/-
Special Officer & Competent Authority,
Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad.
To
Sri Sama Bal Reddy, Declarant (died) per LR’s.
R/o. Champapet, Hyderabad.
24. Copy of Section 10(5) notice dated 06.11.2006 filed by the
respondent No.4 along with the counter affidavit in WP.No.24851 of
2015 shows that notice was served on one Vamshidar,
S/o. Narasimha Reddy S/o. Bal Reddy. There is an endorsement
“served on the grandson of Sama Bal Reddy” by the Enquiry Officer
dated 05.12.2006. The notice dated 06.11.2006 is in the name of
Sama Bal Reddy, who expired even before Section 8(4) order dated
21.08.2006 was passed. Though the respondent No.4 made it
appear that order dated 21.08.2006 was passed after brining LR’s
on record, on a closer scrutiny of the order dated 21.08.2006,
it is evident that the LR’s were not brought on record. Merely by
mentioning in the order that Sama Bal Reddy through LR’s (whose
details are not known), it cannot be said that the LR’s were brought
on record. The record reveals that essentially the order dated
21.08.2006 was passed in the name of dead person. It is not only
that the legal representatives were not brought on record in Section
188(4) proceedings, even in the subsequent proceedings i.e. Section
10(5) dated 06.11.2006 and Section 10(6) dated 05.09.2007, the
notices were issued in the name of dead person. This Court in
WP.No.12798 of 2021 dated 13.04.2022 held as under:
“13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, it is clearly shown in the order passed under
Section 8(4) order dated 29.04.1987 that
Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum expired. The notice under
Section 10(5) of the Act dated 03.01.2007 was issued in the
name of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum, who was dead by then.
Section 10(5) of the Act mandates that notices should be
given to the land owner and person in possession of the
property. This Court in STATE OF A.P., REVENUE
DEPARTMENT v. SMT. A. BHARATHI [2002 (4) ALT 334
(DB)] held as under:
“… Even otherwise it was brought to our notice that
the statutory notices under the Act were issued in the
name of dead person which is non est in the eye of law
…”
The legal heirs of the declarant were parties to Section
8(1) and Section 8(4) proceedings. The respondent No.3
was well aware of the death of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum.
However, for the reasons best known, the respondent No.3
has chosen to issue notice under Section 10(5) to
Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum (dead person). Thus, the notice
under Section 10(5) and consequential order under Section
10(6) are vitiated and held to be void. Further, proceedings
of taking over possession under the guise of panchanama
dated 12.03.2007 is nonest in the eye of law.”
19
25. The further illegality committed by the respondents is
non-service of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act to the persons
interested. Section 10(5) of the Act mandates notice to be served
not only to the declarant or persons interested but also to the
persons in possession of the surplus land. The petitioner claims to
have purchased the subject property under registered sale deed
bearing document No.1401/1978 dated 17.05.1978. The said deed
shows that the petitioner was inducted into possession of the
subject property. The petitioner filed regularization application
under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008. As the petitioner is an
interested person, the petitioner also should have been served with
notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, which is mandatory as held
in the following decisions.
26. The Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v.
HARI RAM 3 held as under:
“Peaceful dispossession
34. Sub-section (5) of Section 10, for the first time,
speaks of “possession” which says where any land is vested
in the State Government under sub-section (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.
35. If de facto possession has already passed on to
the State Government by the two deeming provisions under3
(2013) 4 SCC 280
20sub-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 early. Once there is no
voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily
the State Government has to issue notice in writing under
sub-section (5) to Section 10 to surrender or deliver
possession. Subsection (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.
Forceful dispossession
36. The Act provides for forceful dispossession but
only when a person refuses or fails to comply with an order
under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Sub-section (6) to
Section 10 again speaks of “possession” which says, if any
person refuses or fails to comply with the order made under
sub- section (5), the competent authority may take
possession of the vacant land to be given to the State
Government and for that purpose, force – as may be
necessary – can be used. Sub-section (6), therefore,
contemplates a situation of a person refusing or fails to
comply with the order under sub- section (5), in the event
of which the competent authority may take possession by
use of force. Forcible dispossession of the land, therefore, is
being resorted only in a situation which falls under
sub-section (6) and not under sub-section (5) to Section 10.
Sub-sections (5) and (6), therefore, take care of both the
situations, i.e. taking possession by giving notice that is
“peaceful dispossession” and on failure to surrender or give
delivery of possession under Section 10(5), than “forceful
dispossession” under sub-section (6) of Section 10.
21
37. The requirement of giving notice under sub-
sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the
word ‘may’ has been used therein, the word ‘may’ in both
the sub-sections has to be understood as “shall”
because a court charged with the task of enforcing the
statute needs to decide the consequences that the
legislature intended to follow from failure to implement the
requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-section
(5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it might result
the land holder being dispossessed without notice,
therefore, the word ‘may’ has to be read as ‘shall’.”
27. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in A.P.
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. TAHSILDAR 4,
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
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 447
22
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
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
23
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.”
28. In P. VIJAYA JYOTHI V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 5,
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, held as under:
“16. In the case of Kothuru Babu Surendra Kumar (died)
and others v. Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC,
Vijayawada and others (supra), this Court at Paragraph 28
held as under:
5
2014 (3) ALD 655
24“28. 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 Section 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, 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 28.5.1984. 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
Section 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.”
17. This Court, when the similar question fell for
consideration, passed an order in WP No.4064/2010, dated
4.3.2010, holding that the order passed against a dead
person is non est and does not give rise to any legal
consequences. In the case of Y. Sri Rama Krishnaiah v.
Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land
Ceiling, Vijayawada and others (supra), this Court held that
the notification issued under Section 10(3) without notice to
25
the interested persons is not a valid one and that the
proceedings issued without adherence to the mandatory
requirement under Rule 5(2) are invalid and illegal. In the
case of M/s. L.S. & Co. v. State of A.P. (supra), this Court
categorically held that the service of notice upon the
interested persons is mandatory.
In BHEL (R&D) EMPLOYEES’ COOPERATIVE HOUSING
SOCIETY LTD. HYDERABAD V SPECIAL OFFICER AND
COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILING,
HYDERABAD6, the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, held
as under:
“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).
6
(2012) 5 ALD 325
26
29. So far as locus standi of the petitioner is concerned,
the petitioner, being in possession of the subject property and
being interested person as discussed in the preceding paragraphs
and in the light of the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid
decisions, is entitled to institute the instant writ petitions, more
particularly, in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1976.
30. It may be noted that at the time of passing of interim order
dated 31.08.2015, it was informed to this Court that the subject
property is being used for construction of office of the Tahsildar,
Saidabad. The said order was passed by this Court permitting the
respondents to construct the office subject to further orders in the
writ petition with a rider that no equities shall be claimed by the
parties.
31. In the light of the above observations, WP.No.24851 of 2015
is allowed and the proceedings in CC.No.J2/9225/76 dated
05.09.2007 are declared as void and unenforceable against the
petitioner and accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed
to hand over the possession of Plot No.2, admeasuring 620 sq.
yards in Sy.No.212, Vinayak Nagar Colony, Champapet Road,
Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad along with the building constructed
therein to the petitioner. Consequently, WP.No.20563 of 2015 is
27
disposed of directing the respondents to return the amount of
Rs.16,30,200/-, paid towards regularization, to the petitioner within
a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
April 15, 2025
DSK
[ad_2]
Source link