Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 July, 2025
APHC010078062022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION Nos: 4860, 9054 & 32829/2022
WRIT PETITION NO: 4860/2022
Between:
1. SRI LAKSHMI MODERN RICE MILLS, REP BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER KANCHARLA KANAKA RAO, AGED 71 YEARS, R/O 54-
20/6-1A, PLOT NO.19, DAIRY OFFICERS COLONY, ROAD NO.2,
VIJAYAWADA 520008
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH
4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, URBAN LAND CEILING OFFICE,
VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH
5. THE TAHSILDHAR, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT(S):
Page 2 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the
nature of Mandamus declaring the high-handed action of 4th Respondent in
putting/displaying notice on the wall of the premises belonging to the
Petitioner on 09.02.2022 to an extent of Ac1.14Cents in Rs.no.343/4 of
Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District showing the said land is
covered by Urban Land Ceiling is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 ( Act 15 of 1999 ) and Section 3 of
Repeal Act (Act 15 of 1999) and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to
remove notice displayed on 09.02.2022 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the Respondents particularly 4th Respondent not to take any coercive
steps including dispossession of Petitioner from their land to an extent of
Ac.1.14Cents in Rs.no.343/4 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna
District under the guise of notice displayed on 09.02.2022 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
WRIT PETITION NO: 9054/2022
Between:
1. SRI LAKSHMI MODERN RICE MILL,, REP BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER KANCHARLA KANAKA RAO, AGED 71 YEARS, RIO 54-
20/6-1A, PLOT NO.19, DAIRY OFFICERS COLONY, ROAD NO.2,
VIJAYAWADA 520008
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT
Page 3 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH
4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN
LAND CEILING OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH
5. THE TAHSILDHAR, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the
nature of Mandamus a) declaring the Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the
4th Respondent in proceedings vide SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/
Penamaluru in pursuance of Go.Ms.36 dated 31.01.2022 is illegal, arbitrary
and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Section 9 and Section 10
of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 ( Act 33 of 1976) and
Section 3 and Section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act
1999 ( Act 15 of 1999) and b) Also further declare that scheme provided
under Go.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008 and Go.Ms.No.36 dated 31.01.2022
has no application to the land admeasuring Ac.1.14Cents in Sy.no.343/4A of
Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District belonging to the
Petitioner as the stage of Section 10 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act 1976 ( Act 33 of 1976) is not reached so far as the Petitioner is concerned
and c) Consequently set aside the Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the 4th
Respondent in proceedings vide SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/Penamaluru
being violative of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 ( Act 33 of
1976) and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 ( Act 15 of
1999 ) and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of Constitution of
India and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
Page 4 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
suspend the operation of Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the 4th
Respondent in proceedings vide SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/Penamaluru
and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
WRIT PETITION NO: 32829/2022
Between:
1. SRI LAKSHMI MODERN RICE MILL, , REP BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER KANCHARLA KANAKA RAO, AGED 71 YEARS, R/O 54-
20/6-1A, PLOT NO.19, DAIRY OFFICERS COLONY, ROAD NO.2,
VIJAYAWADA 520008
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT
4. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REFORMS AND URBAN LAND
CEILINGS, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH
6. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN
LAND CEILING OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH
Page 5 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
7. THE TAHSILDHAR, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH
8. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDHAR, URBAN LAND CEILING,
VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the
nature of Mandamus a)declaring the Proceedings vide Memo
No.828/UC.III/86-1 dated 28.10.1986 issued by the 2nd Respondent not
granting exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of Act 33 of 1976 and further
declaring non communication of the said Proceedings on the Petitioner soon
after issuance of the same is deemed to be not Served on the Petitioner and
Enforceable and stood abated by virtue of Repeal of Act 33 of 1976 is illegal,
arbitrary and Non Est in the eye of law and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and
300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and
b)declaring the various Alleged Orders/Steps/Notices stated to be issued by
the Respondents under Section 10 of the Act 33 of 1976 stood abated by
virtue of Repeal of Act 33 of 1976 as none of the same are served on the
Petitioner which is mandatory under the procedure contemplated under
Section 10 of the Act 33 of 1976 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14,
19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the
same and c) declaring the various Alleged Orders/Steps/Notices stated to be
issued by the Respondents under Section 10(1) to 10(5) of the Act 33 of 1976
including the Alleged Panchnama conducted by the Stn Respondent under
Section 10(6) of the Act 33 of 1976 without serving Notice on the Petitioner or
allowing the Petitioner to exercise his option to select the land to be retained
or surrendered is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A
of the Constitution of India and consequently declaring all the actions stood
abated by virtue of the Repeal of Act 33 of 1976 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the operation of Proceedings vide Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1 dated
28.10.1986 issued by the 2nd Respondent and the various Alleged
Orders/Steps/Notices stated to be issued by the Respondents under Section
10(1) to 10(5) of the Act 33 of 1976 including the Alleged Panchnama
Page 6 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
conducted by the 8th Respondent under Section 10(6) of the Act 33 of 1976
and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the
above Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased receive the Reply Affidavit to Counter Affidavit filed by the 6'^
Respondent record by allowing the leave petition in the above Writ Petition
and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Court made the following:
:: COMMON ORDER :
:
Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are interconnected, the
writ petitions are disposed of by way of a common order.
2. The facts, in brief, are that:
(a) The Managing Partner of the petitioner purchased an agricultural
land of an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in R.S.No.343/4 of Poranki Village,
Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, under a registered document dated
27.02.1984. The Managing Partner of the petitioner and others entered into a
partnership on 01.03.1984, to carry on business under the name and style of
Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill in the aforementioned property. The Managing
Page 7 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022Partner made an application to Poranki Gram Panchayat on 21.03.1984 to
construct the structure. The Executive Officer of Poranki Gram Panchayat, by
proceedings in D.Dis.No.140/84, dated 05.06.1984, accorded permission. The
Managing Partner of the petitioner obtained no objection for the construction
of a house with an RCC roof and godown, from Vijayawada – Guntur – Tenali
Urban Development Authority by D.Dis.No.1871/84, dated 16.08.1984. The
Director of Factories approved the plan on 29.06.1984 and revised the plan on
06.12.1994. The Department of Industries issued a certificate for permanent
registration of a rice mill on 04.09.1985.
(b) The Managing Partner of the petitioner started operations in a
rice mill and operated till May 2021. The premises were leased out for a
godown purpose to NSPIRA Management Services Private Limited by a lease
deed dated 30.10.2021 for 5 years. From the date of commencement of the
rice mill till its closure, taxes have been paid regularly.
(c) Be that as it may, respondent No.4 pasted a notice on the wall on
09.02.2022, stating that the land in R.S.No.343/4A is covered under Urban
Land Ceiling and the encroachers, if any, will be punished. Challenging this,
the petitioner filed W.P.No.4860 of 2022.
(d) Pending the said writ petition, respondent No.4 issued a notice
vide SR No.2803/1384/2022/ULC/Penamaluru Mandal, dated 04.03.2022,
directing the petitioner to get the land regularised under G.O.Ms.No.36
Revenue U.C.-I Department, dated 31.01.2022. Challenging the said notice,
the petitioner filed W.P. No. 9054 of 2022.
3. A counter affidavit was filed in W.P.No.9054 of 2022 by respondent
No.4, enclosing the proceedings vide Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated
28.10.1986, issued by respondent No.2, whereby declining to grant exemption
under Section 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). Along with the counter affidavit, the
proceedings under Section 10 of the ULC Act are also annexed. Challenging
Page 8 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
the memo dated 28.10.1986 and the consequential proceedings under
Section 10 of the ULC Act, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32829 of 2022.
4. The Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling,
Hyderabad, recommended exemption of an extent of Ac.3113.17 square
meters of Poranki Village vide Letter No.AU03/780/86, dated 31.07.1986. In
the said letter, the Commissioner observed as follows:
“The Managing partner of the petitioner applied for exemption to
an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in R.S.No.343/4 of Poranki Village,
Vijayawada Urban Agglomeration under Section 20(1)(a) of the ULC
Act for modern rice mill.
The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,
Vijayawada, by proceedings in C.No.2803/84, dated 06.09.1984
treated the total land of 4613.47 square meters as holding of the firm
and the firm is entitled for 1500 square meters and that an extent of
3113.47 square meters to be surrendered to the Government. The
authority also reported that according to inspection report of the
General Manager, District Industries Center and Zonal Engineer,
APIIC, Vijayawada, the firm is eligible to have 7055.71 square meters
and that it is a S.S.I Unit registered under Small Scale Industries and
plans were approved.
The District Level Committee in its meeting held on 31.10.1985,
agreed to recommend the exemption application under Section 20(1)
(a) of the ULC Act, filed by the Managing partner for exemption of
3113.47 square meters.
The Collector, Krishna in D.Dis.8037/84, dated 02.01.1986
recommended for exemption, subject to usual conditions as the land in
question is outside the Master Plan Area, but within the Urban
Agglomeration and as this is an industry.
The Commissioner addressed the report of the Collector, and
requested to grant exemption.”
Page 9 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
5. Separate counter affidavits have been filed in W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 of
2022. The averments in the counter affidavit in W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829
of 2022 are similar, and hence, the averments in the counter affidavit of
W.P.No.9054 of 2022 are being extracted.
6. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit and contended inter alia, that:
(a) After due inquiry, the then Special Officer & Competent Authority
has issued Section 8(4) orders vide proceedings No.CC/B1.2803/84, dated
06.09.1984. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, ULC, forwarded the
application filed by the Managing Partner of the petitioner to the Secretary to
the Government, Revenue (UC.III) Department, duly enclosing a copy of the
letter submitted by the Collector, Krishna. The then Collector, Krishna,
requested to grant exemption to an extent of 3113.47 square meters in
R.S.No.343/4A of Poranki Village.
(b) The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo
No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, pointing out the judgment in
W.P.No.6512 of 1983 that if agricultural land is sold, utilized or intended to be
utilized for non-agricultural purposes, it should be treated as vacant land,
attracting the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, the
transaction violates provisions of the ULC Act, and hence, the exemption
cannot be granted under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act, unless the land owner
files the statement before the competent authority. The Special Officer and
Competent Authority ULC, Vijayawada, therefore requested to take action
accordingly, in terms of the Government Memo dated 10.09.1986.
(c) Accordingly, a notice was given to one Smt. N. Sitaravamma. In
turn, she replied about the alienation of an agricultural land and later the
construction of the rice mill by the purchaser. Hence, she did not file any
application under Section 6(1) of the Act.
Page 10 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
(d) The proceedings under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act were
issued on 02.09.1991 and 07.12.1991. Section 10(3) of the Act was published
in Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part II at page No.629, dated 08.05.1997. The
possession of the land was taken on 03.01.2007 under Section 10(6) of the
Act. Thereafter, a pamphlet was affixed. A notice dated 04.03.2022 was
issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 31.01.2022. The Special Officer and
Competent Authority of ULC had adopted the procedure under Section 10(1),
10(3) and 10(5) of the Act.
(e) Respondent No.4 determined that the petitioner is holding an
extent 3113.47 square meters in R.S.No.343/4A of Poranki Village, and the
same was informed to the petitioner vide CC.No.2803/1984 dated 06.09.1984.
Though the possession of the land was taken on 03.01.2007, the petitioner
continued the building operations till 2021 in the schedule property. Thus,
prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
7. Heard Sri N. Bharath Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Yathidra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the
Office of learned Advocate General, appeared for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents made
in the affidavit, would further contend that the proceedings of the Government
vide Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, were not communicated to
the petitioner. Learned counsel would also submit that the procedure
mandated under Section 10(1), 10(2) and 10(5) of the Act was not adhered to.
The possession of the land was never taken, and the petitioner continued the
rice mill till 2021. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the
discrepancy regarding the Gazette notifications issued under Section 10(3)
and 10(1) of the Act and the possession, allegedly taken as per the
Panchanama on 03.01.2007. Though the authorisation under Section 10(5) of
the Act was issued on 21.04.2007, the possession of the property, allegedly,
Page 11 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
had taken on 03.01.2007 before in point in time, itself discerns the violations
at every stage.
9. Sri Yathindra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader, would contend
that the proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 28.10.1986 were
communicated to the petitioner immediately. Respondent No.4 adhered to the
procedure as mandated under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act.
10. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide Memo
No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, were communicated to the
petitioner or not?
2. Whether respondent No.4 adhered to the procedure as mandated
under Sections 10(1), 10(3), 10(5) & 10(6) of the Act?
3. Whether the possession of the property was taken on
03.01.2007 or not?
4. Whether the petitioner continued illegally, despite the possession
being taken by the Government, and the petitioner has to pay the
amount as per G.O.Ms. No.36 dated 31.01.2022?
11. Since all points for consideration are interrelated, they have been
discussed simultaneously.
12. The narration of the facts referred to supra, there is no dispute
regarding the purchase of land and making an application by the Managing
Partner of the petitioner seeking exemption under the Act; recommendation of
the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling dated 31.07.1986
in W.P.No.32829 of 2022; issuance of Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated
28.10.1986, by respondent No.2, pointing out the judgment in W.P.No.6512 of
1983 and denying the granting of exemption, and further directing the vendor
Page 12 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
to file the statement under Section 6(1) of the Act before the competent
authority.
13. As seen from Ex.P2 filed in W.P.No.32829 of 2022, a notice under
Section 6(2) of the ULC Act was issued to the vendor, and the vendor replied
vide Ex.P3, stating that she alienated the property as an agricultural land and
hence, there is no intention to file any declaration.
14. The petitioner specifically contended in the affidavit that the
proceedings vide Ex.P1 (rejection proceedings) in W.P.No.32829 of 2022
were not communicated to the petitioner, and the petitioner is unaware of the
same. Whereas, in the counter affidavit, it was contended that the
proceedings vide Ex.P1 were communicated to the petitioner and the
petitioner is aware of the same. When the petitioner denied communication
and the respondents asserted communication, the respondents should have
placed some cogent material before this Court to substantiate the same.
However, no piece of evidence was filed to substantiate the said contention.
Any order passed by the authority should be communicated to the litigant or
the applicant. Unless and until the order is communicated to the applicant, the
appellant cannot be expected to know about the decision of the authority. If
the order is not communicated, it has no force in the eyes of the law.
15. The Madras High Court in The Secretary of State for India in Council
Vs. Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu and Ors.1 held thus:
“A decision cannot properly be said to be passed until it is in some way
pronounced or published under such circumstances that the parties
affected by it have a reasonable opportunity of knowing what it
contains. Till then, though it may be written out, signed and dated, it is
nothing but the decision which the officer intends to pass. It is not
passed so long as it is open to him to tear up what he has written and
write something else.”
1
(1911) ILR 34 Mad 151
Page 13 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
16. In Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 2, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held thus:
“12. … … Therefore to make the opinion amount to a decision of the
Government it must be communicated to the person concerned. “13.
Thus, it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the
person who would be affected by that order before the State and that
person can be bound by that order. … …”
17. In State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika3, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held thus:
“11. … … It is plain that mere passing of an order of dismissal would not
be effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer
concerned.”
18. This Court reiterated the same principle in Samasetti
Nagabhushanam Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors4.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended regarding the
irregularities under Section 10 of the Act. One of the irregularities pointed out
by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities failed to
adhere to the procedure under Section 10 of the Act.
20. Section 10 of the Act envisages the acquisition of vacant land over the
ceiling limit. After service of a statement under Section 9 on the person
concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the
particulars of the vacant land held by such person more than the ceiling limit
and the same to be published for the information of the general public in the
Official Gazette. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act speaks about the
objections and consideration of objections. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of
the Act prescribes the publication of a notification in the Official Gazette
2
AIR 1963 SC 395
3
AIR 1966 SC 1313,
4
MANU/AP/1215/2023
Page 14 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
declaring the excess land referred to in the notification published under sub-
section (1) of the Act and determining the provision that the land is vested with
the State Government.
21. A perusal of notice vide Ex.P4, issued under sub-section (3) of Section
10 of the Act, would indicate that a Gazette under Section 10(1) of the Act was
published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.256. However, the date of the
Gazette was not mentioned. In Ex.P5, the notice under Section 10(5) of the
Act, it was mentioned that the Gazette under Section 10(3) of the Act was
published in Gazette No.256, dated 19.09.1991. Despite the discrepancy
being pointed out, the Gazettes were not filed along with the counter-affidavit,
except stating that the authority adhered to the procedure.
22. In para No.4 of the counter-affidavit, it was stated as follows:
“It is further submitted that U/s 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act were
issued on 2.9.91 and 7.12.91 respectively. And 10(3) of the Act
published vide in A.P.Gazette Part II at page No.629, dt.8.05.1997 and
Possession of the land has been taken over to an extent of
3113.47Sq.mts in R.S.No.343/4A of Poranki Village on 03.01.2007 U/s
10(6) of the Act.”
23. As pointed out supra, no date was mentioned in the Andhra Pradesh
Gazette No.256 in Ex.P4, whereas in Ex.P5, the date for Gazette No.256 was
given as 19.09.1991. Even the copies of the gazette notifications are not
placed before the Court. This is one of the irregularities.
24. Sub-section 5 of the Section 10 of the Act, prescribes that where any
vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3), the
competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person, in possession
of it, to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to
any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty
days of the service of the notice. If any person refuses to comply with the
order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take
Page 15 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
possession of the vacant land or cause, or authorise any person to take
possession under Section 10(6) of the Act.
25. Given the scheme, a perusal of Ex.P7/panchanama would indicate that
the possession of the land was taken on 03.01.2007, and the authorization
under Section 10(6) of the Act was given to the Special Deputy Tahsildar on
21.04.2007 under Ex.P6. Thus, even before authorization, the Special Deputy
Tahsildar allegedly took possession of the property, beyond the
comprehension of a prudent person. However, the counter-affidavit did not
explain the discrepancy, a crucial aspect. Ex.P7, Panchanama would further
discern that the land of an extent 3113.47 square meters was taken over in
the presence of witnesses on 03.01.2007 and the boundaries were mentioned
as East: R.S.No.342, West: R.S.No.343/3, South: R.S.No.343/4B and North:
R.S.No.343/2. This instance makes the things more than discernible that the
respondent authorities failed to adhere to the procedure under Sec 10 of the
Act.
26. Regarding the service of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that no notice under Section
10(5) of the Act was served on the petitioner. Nothing was placed before the
Court regarding the service of the notice by the respondents.
27. Learned Single Judge of Composite High Court in P. Lakshmi Kantha
Rao and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 5, regarding
service of notice at para Nos.21 & 22, observed as follows:
“21. On 2.2.2008, the 2nd respondent approved the noting and
reference to notice issued under Section 10(5) on 1.9.2007 is made.
The onus, as noted above, is on the 2 nd respondent to satisfy that
notice was issued to the petitioners to take up next stage under Section
10(6) of the Act. As observed by the apex Court, the service of notice
on the persons in possession of surplus land under Section 10(5) of the5
(2015) 3 ALD 248
Page 16 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022Act is mandatory for two reasons, firstly to enable the person in
possession of the land to voluntarily surrender the surplus land either to
the State Government or to person authorized by the State
Government. With the expiry of the period stipulated under the Act, the
respondents can take possession forcefully as is required depending
on satisfactorily discharging the onus viz., that then otices under
Section 10(5) of the Act are issued to the petitioners cannot by
reference to endorsement dated 13.3.2008 claim to have taken
possession of the surplus land from the petitioners. The possession as
is evident from the counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit
does not say whether it is voluntarily or forcible.
22. The ratio of the decisions in Hariram‟s (supra) and Gajanan
Kamlya Patil‟s case (supra), applies with full fours to the case on hand.
The definite case of respondents is that after notice under Section
10(5), possession under Section 10(6) was taken over on 13.3.2008.
As already noticed, the burden is on the 2 nd respondent to prove that
the procedure is followed and possession taken over on 13.3.2008.
The service of notice under Section 10(5) cannot be inferred from note
file, but should be proved by primary evidence. The additional counter-
affidavit and original record belie this assertion. At the time of taking up
steps under Section 10(6), the note file does not refer to service of
notice under Section 10(5), but it refers to issue of notice under Section
10(5) on 1.9.2007. From the record it is evident that there is breach in
following mandatory procedure and the respondents cannot claim
possession of subject land for any purpose.”
28. In fact, the learned Judge observed that the service of notice under
Section 10(5) of the Act cannot be inferred from a note file but should be
proved by primary evidence.
Page 17 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
29. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hariram6, while
dealing with 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, observed as follows:
“34. 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
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 10 is that it might
result the land holder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the
word „may‟ has to be read as „shall‟.
……
36. Above-mentioned directives make it clear that sub-section (3)
takes in only de jure possession and not de facto possession,
therefore, if the land owner is not surrendering possession voluntarily
under sub-section (3) of Section 10, or surrendering or delivering
possession after notice, under Section 10(5) or dispossession by use of
force, it cannot be said that the State Government has taken
possession of the vacant land.”
30. Thus, the discussion supra, this Court concludes that no notice under
Sec 10(5) of the Act was served on the petitioner.
31. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, while considering the Effect of the Repeal Act,
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 that
there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and
delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or
6
(2013) 4 SCC 280
Page 18 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022forceful 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.”
32. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in M/s Andhra Pradesh Electrical Equipment
Corporation v. The Tashsildar & others, ETC7, considered the earlier
judgements vis-à-vis the procedure mandated under the Urban Land Ceiling
Act observed as follows:
“38. If de facto possession has already passed on to the State
Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) to
Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression “where any
land is vested.” Under sub-section (5) to Section 10. Surrendering or
transfer of possession under sub-section (3) to Section 10 can be
voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided
under Section 11 of the Act, 1976 early. Once there is no voluntary
surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government
has to issue notice in writing under sub-section (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 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 18.03.1999. State has to establish that
there 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 failure7
2025 INSC 274
Page 19 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022to 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.
40. The effect of Repeal Act, 1999 is further clear. If the landowner
remains in physical possession, then irrespective of his land being
declared surplus and/or entry being made in favour of the State in
revenue records, he will not be divested of his rights. Even if
compensation is received that also will not dis-entitle him to claim the
benefit if compensation is refunded, provided he is in actual physical
possession. Payment of compensation has no co-relation with the
taking of actual physical possession as with the vesting land
compensation becomes payable which can be paid without taking
actual physical possession.
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.
Page 20 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022[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 work “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.”
33. Concerning the conduct of panchanama, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
para No.45, observed as follows:
“….When State Authorities try to take law in their own hands by hook or
crook and rely on bogus paper panchanamas for the purpose of
asserting that actual physical possession was taken over before the
date of the repeal, then it is imperative that the signature of the
landowner must be obtained in the panchanama so as to attach
sanctity and authenticity to such exercise of taking over of actual
possession. Affidavits of the panchas would also attach great sanctity
to the same.”
34. In the case at hand, the panchanama said to have been conducted
while taking possession does not inspire the confidence of the Court. The
latches, according to this Court, are (1) Non-mentioning of boundaries except
Page 21 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
survey numbers; (2) taking possession even before the authorization (3) non-
service of notice and the existence and functioning of the mill even after the
possession was allegedly taken by the respondent authorities. These
discrepancies demonstrate that the panchanama and the taking of possession
under it are factually incorrect, and it can be termed as paper possession.
35. Thus, as discussed supra, this Court concludes that the rejection
proceedings dated 28.10.1986 were not communicated to the petitioner.
Respondent No.4 failed to adhere to the procedure under Section 10(1) and
10(3) of the Act i.e. publication of Gazettes. Respondent No. 4 failed to serve
notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. Even before the authorisation under
Ex.P6, possession was allegedly taken under Ex.P7 Panchanama; however,
no possession was taken under the Panchanama. Section 3 of the Act does
not apply to the case at hand, since the respondent authorities failed to prove
that the possession of the land was taken over.
36. Given the discussion supra, the Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated
28.10.1986, is hereby set aside, and the consequential proceedings under
Sections 10(1), 10(5) of the Act and the alleged panchanama under Section
10(6) of the Act are declared as abated by the repeal of the Act.
37. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date : 23.07.2025
TVN
Page 22 of 22
SRS,J
W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022
88
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NoS.4860, 9054 & 32829 OF 2022
Date : 23.07.2025
TVN