Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Smt. Savaram Ramadevi on 11 March, 2025
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010367822021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3525]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
Review I.A.No.1 OF 2022
IN
WRIT APPEAL No.674/2021
Between:
State Of Andhra Pradesh, and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Smt Savaram Ramadevi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN)
2. P SRI RAM
3. S PRANATHI
The Court made the following Order:
Sri J. Koteswara Rao, had filed a declaration, in U.L.C.No.397 of
1979, under the provisions of the Section-6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short “the ULC Act“], declaring ownership of
agriculture land, in Sy.No.162/A of Ankireddipalem Village. Thereafter, the
2special officer issued a draft statement, dated 04.11.1980 under Section-8(1)
of the ULC Act computing the agricultural land and the land covered by the
dwelling house as vacant land. On 09.12.1980, Sri J. Koteswara Rao filed an
exemption application under Section-20 of the ULC Act. While this application
was pending, the special officer is said to have issued a final statement under
Section-9 of the ULC Act, declaring that the declarant held 7748.25 sq.mts, in
D.No.162/A part. However, this statement under Section-9 of the ULC Act had
been issued without issuing a statutory order under Section-8(4) of the ULC
Act. The special officer also appears to have got notifications under Section
10(1) & 10(3) of the ULC Act, published in the Gazette and is said to have
issued a notice under Section-10(5) of the ULC Act, dated 18.11.1991 to Sri J.
Koteswara Rao, to surrender the surplus land and directed the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Guntur to take possession of the surplus land immediately
after the expiry of the period of one month. Sri J. Koteswara Rao filed appeal
No.GNT No.105/91, before the Appellate Authority which came to be
dismissed, on 09.07.2001. After the dismissal of the appeal, the special
officer, again directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur, by proceedings
dated 04.08.2001 to handover the surplus land to VGMT UDA. This
proceeding appears to have been issued on the ground that the possession of
the land had been taken, in the year-1995.
2. After the said proceedings had been issued, the daughters of Sri
J. Koteswara Rao, filed a petition, dated 04.10.2001, to reopen the
proceedings and to pass orders under Section-8(4) of the ULC Act. This
3
application came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the
daughters of Sri J. Koteswara Rao, who are the Writ Petitioners in the present
Writ Petition, had filed W.P.No.23220 of 2001 before the erstwhile High Court
of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad contending that the possession of
the land could not have been taken without passing an order under Section-
8(4) of the ULC Act and that in any event, the land in question cannot be
treated as vacant land as the said land was agricultural land. The petitioners
relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of
Atia Mohammed Begum Vs. State of U.P. 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, had held that land which is under actual agricultural operation
would have to be treated as agricultural lands falling outside the purview of the
ULC Act and cannot be treated as vacant land.
3. A Learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, by Judgment, dated 09.11.2001, had disposed
of the Writ Petition, with a direction to the Urban Land Ceilings authorities to
dispose of the representation of the petitioners, dated 04.10.2001, in
accordance with the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in
case of Atia Mohammed Begum Vs. State of U.P. and Mr. S. Gupta Vs. State
of West Bengal2, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the
Order and to maintain Status-quo as to possession.
1
AIR 1993 SC 2465
2
AIR 1992 SC 1567
4
4. Thereafter, the special officer passed revised orders, dated
26.05.2004 under Section-8(4) of the ULC Act and directed for issuance of
final statement accordingly.
5. It may be noticed that one of the ground raised by the petitioners
was that they are the daughters of Sri J. Koteswara Rao and had been allotted
Ac.0.50 cents of land each towards pasupu kumkuma, in the year 1994 and
that they are in possession and enjoyment of the respective extents of land.
This contention was rejected by the special officer holding that any such
transaction would be in violation of Section-5(3) of the ULC Act and would be
non-est. The special officer had passed an order that the family of the
declarant was holding 7712 sq.mts of vacant land which was in excess of the
limit set out under the provisions of the ULC Act, in Sy.No.162/A of
Ankireddipalem Village. After the passing of this order, no further steps appear
to have been made to take possession of the land. The contention of the
Urban Land Ceiling authorities was that the possession of the land had
already been taken, on 10.10.1995 pursuant to the earlier orders passed
under Section-9 of the ULC Act and as such, there is no need for taking fresh
possession of the land.
6. At that stage, the petitioners had moved W.P.No.14053 of 2017,
before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, for a declaration that the
agricultural land held by the deceased declarant and the agricultural land of
Ac.1.50 cents, in Sy.No.162/A of Ankireddipalem Village, is not hit by the
5
provisions of the ULC Act, since the ULC Act was repealed with effect from
the year 2008.
7. The Learned Single Judge after considering all the aforesaid facts
had held that the proceedings of the Urban Land Ceiling authorities was at the
stage of Section-8(4) of the ULC Act and that the provisions of the repeal Act,
which came into force on 27.03.2008 would apply and all proceedings would
have to be treated as lapsed as the possession of the land, in terms of
Section-10 of the ULC Act had not been taken and consequently, the repeal
act would apply and the proceedings would abate.
8. Aggrieved by the Order dated 31.12.2018, the Urban Land Ceiling
authorities moved W.A.No.647 of 2021 with a delay of 972 days. A Division
Bench of this Court, by Judgment, dated 21.12.2021 had dismissed the
condone delay application filed along with Writ Appeal on the ground that no
case has been made out for condonation of delay.
9. Aggrieved by this Judgment, the present Review Petition has
been filed. The main ground in the Review Petition is that the orders before the
special officer as well as the before the Learned Single Judge were obtained
by fraud. This contention is raised on the ground that the Writ Petitioners, had
made a false statement before the special officer that they were entitled to the
lands as pasupu kukuma even though they are not married at the time when
the alleged transfer of land had taken place in the year 1994.
10. This Court is unable to accept this contention in as much as the
plea of the petitioners that they were given land by their father, even before
6
their marriage, as paspu kukuma, was rejected by the special officer himself
on the ground that any such transfer is void on account of the provisions of
Section 5(3) of the ULC Act.
11. In such a situation, the question of fraud does not arise as the
special officer had not accepted this contention and had in fact passed orders
rejecting the said contention.
12. As fraud has not vitiated the order of the special officer, the
question of fraud vitiating the order of the Learned Single Judge also does not
arise. Further, the Learned Single Judge had taken the view that the
proceedings had lapsed on account of fact that the proceedings were at the
stage of Section 8(4) of the ULC Act and possession of the land had not been
taken. The Learned Single Judge had not gone into the question of whether
the land had been transferred to the petitioners, in the year 1994 or not.
13. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Review application is
dismissed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
_______________________
DR K MANMADHA RAO, J
BSM
