AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All these Writ Appeals are being disposed of as they arise out of the common order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.20780 and 20781 of 2008, dated 28.07.2017.
While W.A.Nos.731 and 732 of 2019 are filed the State, W.A.Nos.61 and 62 of 2018 are preferred by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, in the writ petitions.
Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.731 and 732 of 2019; Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, which is the appellant in W.A.Nos.61 and 62 of 2018; Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.A.No.61 of 2018; and Sri H. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent Nos.1 to 6 in W.A.No.731 of 2019.
For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.A.No.731 of 2019 are discussed hereunder.
It has been contended by the appellants that unofficial respondents have challenged the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings in C.C.No.H1/2672/06 under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter be referred as “the Land Ceiling Act”) in computing the land of unofficial respondents admeasuring 36,623-54 sq. meters (Ac.0.91 ½ gts.) in Sy.No.340 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in suo-motu proceedings and the consequential allotment of the land treating it as surplus in favour of the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited by issuing G.O.Ms.No.963, Revenue (UC-I) Department, dated 02.08.2008 and also challenging the action of the appellants in issuing proceedings in respect of 62,636-87 sq. meters of land in Sy.Nos.340 and 341 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and allotting the land by treating it as surplus in favour of the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, vide G.O.Ms.No.963, Revenue (UC-I) Department, dated 02.08.2008, as arbitrary and illegal. It is contended by the appellants that a learned Single Judge of this Court without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants had allowed both the writ petitions by common order dated 28.07.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the present Writ Appeals.
Learned counsel for appellants had contended that the lands in Sy.Nos.335, 336, 338, 340, 341 and 342, totally admeasuring Acs.80-25 gts., which was declared as evacuee property under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for brevity “the Evacuee Property Act”) and the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay, Ministry of Rehabilitation. allotted the said land to one Mr. Vasudev, S/o. Khemchand, who was a displaced person, under allotment order dated 23.06.1956, as per the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. As unofficial respondents claiming title through his predecessor in title, namely Sri Vasudev, who inturn sold the land to one Smt. A. Kamala Devi, w/o. A. Seetharamaiah and Smt. G. Manoharama, w/o. G. Viswanatham, vide registered Sale Deed dated 17.12.1968 and a Certificate under Section 50-B of the Talangana Land Revenue Act was also issued in favour of unofficial respondents.
It has been further contended by the appellants that the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.455 (UC-I) Department, dated 29.07.2002, enabling allotment of surplus land to the third parties, who are in occupation of the same and some eight persons, claiming to be in occupation of the land to an extent of Acs.11-05 gts. In Sy.No.341 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, submitted applications seeking exemption of the said land on the ground that they purchased the same under the registered sale deeds. Upon such applications, respondent No.2 took suo-motu proceedings under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and issued Notice dated 29.05.2006 to Sri Vasudev, under Section 6(2) of Urban Land Ceiling Act in respect of Acs.11-27 gts. of land in Sy.No.341 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and in pursuance of the suo-motu proceedings, a report dated 28.08.2006 was submitted to respondent No.2, wherein the Enquiry Officer by an endorsement dated 17.07.2006 stated that the original Pattadar Sri Vasudev was holding the extent of land to his entitlement under the provisions of Land Ceiling Act and basing on the said report, respondent No.2 passed order dated 09.08.2006 preparing draft statement holding that Sri Vasudev was holding surplus land holder in respect of 62,636-87 sq. meters of land in Sy.Nos.340 and 341 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, therefore, the appellants have rightly followed the law and held that the original pattadar was holding excess land to his entitlement, which is contrary to the Urban Land Ceiling Act and, therefore, sought to pass appropriate orders in the Writ Appeals by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for unofficial respondents had contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petitions in favour of unofficial respondents and at the time of initiating suo-motu proceedings against Sri Vasudev, who was not alive at the time of initiating suo-motu proceedings, there cannot be any order against a dead person and the sale deeds executed in favour of unofficial respondents dates back to 1964 and the appellants, without following the revenue record, had issued suo-motu proceedings without appreciating the fact that the original pattadar has already sold the land in favour of Smt. A. Kamala Devi and Smt. G. Manoharama by way of registered sale deeds during the year 1964 and 1968 and that unofficial respondents’ predecessors have purchased from Smt. A. Kamala Devi and Smt. G. Manoharama and hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petitions in favour of unofficial respondents as suo-motu proceedings were initiated by the appellants against a dead person.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition holding that the appellants have initiated suo-motu proceedings against a dead person by issuing Notice dated 29.05.2006 and has rightly allowed the writ petitions with the following observations :
“In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. HARI RAM (2013) 4 SCC 280 and GAJANAN KAMLYA PATIL V. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (ULC) (2014) 12 SCC 523 , the procedure with regard to dispossession and the effect of Repeal Act was considered. Now the law is well settled that the notice under Section 10(5) as well as 10(6) of the Act should be served on the persons who are in possession as well as on the declarant and in view of the said decisions, the alleged taking over of possession on paper without issuing notice to the petitioners is bad in law. There is no dispute that all the proceedings were taken behind the back of the petitioners and in the name of the deceased original owner. In spite of coming to know of the fact of selling away the entire land by the original owner, no effort was made by the second respondent for verifying the purchases, but he passed order merely basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer who stated that the name of the original owner was reflected in the revenue records. At the time when the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force, the land was in peripheral area and benefit of G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 was available to the declarants, if any, but no such provision was made while calculating the land. In a case of suo motu proceedings, the second respondent should have been more careful, but took several proceedings under the Act, without the knowledge of the subsequent purchasers. Hence, this Court has no doubt with regard to invalidity of the proceedings and, accordingly, all the proceedings emanating from the suo motu proceedings under File in CC.No.H1/2672/06 are quashed and consequently G.O.Ms.No.963, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 02.08.2008, is set aside.
Both the Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed.”
Therefore, having regard to the cogent and convincing reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions, while concluding that there cannot be any proceedings against a dead person, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.