IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.20287 of 2013 BETWEEN Smt. P. Sudha Rani and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. A. ANASUYA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present writ petition questions the impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2006 as well as the panchanama dated 11.03.2008 in File No.F1/3272/6(1)/06.
2. The aforesaid impugned proceedings, however, is only a report of the Special Enquiry Officer, ‘F’ Section put up before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, recommending that the land in Sy.Nos.30 and 31 admeasuring Ac.2.31 guntas in Guttala Begumpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District standing in the name of Mallaiah, pattadar, attracts the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) and a notice under Section 6(2) of the Act may issued to the pattadar.
The panchanama, which is questioned, is purportedly dated 11.03.2008 under which the possession of excess vacant land of the said declarant admeasuring 8,407.51 sq. meters is stated to have been recovered by the Government under Section 10(6) of the Act.
3. Though the relief prayed for is not properly worded, the learned counsel for the petitioners elaborated as follows. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are purchasers of different extents from the legal representatives of the declarant, continue to be in possession of the property even as on today and the said alleged panchanama is merely a paper panchanama and that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 enforced in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.03.2008 applies to the land of the petitioners.
4. Petitioner questions both the said proceedings by primarily contending that all the proceedings taken by the second respondent in pursuance of the notice issued by him under Section 6(2) of the Act was against a dead person and the determination of holding including alleged panchanama is violative of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act.
5. The pleadings of the petitioners, as is evident from the affidavit, show that the land in Sy.Nos.30 and 31 admeasuring Ac.2.13 guntas belonged to one E. Mallaiah, S/o. Pochaiah. The said pattadar reportedly died in 1972 and his wife and children succeeded to the property. The aforesaid land was stated to be outside the purview of the Act, which came into operation from 01.04.1976, as the aforesaid land was classified as agricultural land. However, subsequently, under the extended master plan, Guttala Begumpet village was brought within the purview of the Act after the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF A.P. v. N. AUDIKESAVA REDDY [(2002) 1 SCC 227]. Before the extended master plan was applied to this land, the said village fell within the peripheral area of the master plan and in terms of the policy of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.733 Revenue (ULC.II) Department dated 31.10.1998, each land holder was entitled to hold an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas of vacant land excluding roads and open spaces. Based on the said situation, then existing, the legal heirs of
E. Mallaiah are stated to have converted the aforesaid land into residential plots through a general power of attorney and the respective plots were sold to petitioners 1 to 9 as set out in the table given below:
6. Petitioners claim that after the extended master plan was applied to these plots, the Special Officer, second respondent, gave notice under Section 6(2) of the Act. The proceedings of the Special Officer are filed, all of which show that notice was addressed to one ‘N. Mallaiah’ and not ‘E. Mallaiah’. A copy of enquiry officer’s report dated 15.05.2006 is also enclosed addressed to the Special Officer with regard to service of notice and Section 8(4) statement shows that the pattadar died long back and the legal representatives are not residing in Guttala Begumpet village. Petitioners, therefore, specifically allege that neither the notice to N. Mallaiah was ever served on anybody nor any steps were taken to ascertain the legal heirs of E. Mallaiah and consequently, all the proceedings including draft statement and final statement under the Act were prepared against a dead person without notice to legal representatives.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the panchanama, allegedly, recording taking over of possession dated 11.03.2008 also, therefore, suffers from same vice and consequently, all the proceedings are required to be declared as void and violative of principles of natural justice.
8. This Court admitted the writ petition by order dated 17.07.2013 and directed that status quo in all respects including dispossession, construction, alienation, creation of third party rights, changing the nature of the land etc. shall be maintained until further orders.
The writ petition was, accordingly, directed to be listed along with WP.No.14366 of 2009. However, this writ petition was listed before this Court on 05.03.2014 and 04.04.2014. The Registry had put up a note stating that WP.No.14366 of 2009 is in the list of another learned Judge. However, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that another WP.No.22077 of 2009, which is identical, on facts, in all respects, has already been heard and allowed by this Court by order dated 31.12.2013. A copy of the said order was served on the learned Assistant Government Pleader and was placed on record in the present writ petition.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader was required to get instructions with regard to the said writ petition, particularly, whether any appeal was preferred against the said order and whether the said order had attained finality. On 11.04.2014, this writ petition was listed, accordingly and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the order in WP.No.22077 of 2009, referred to above, has attained finality.
10. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by one of the purchasers from the same pattadar, E. Mallaiah, forming part of the same Sy.Nos.30 and 31 of Guttala Begumpet. Vide para 12 of the aforesaid order, this Court had noticed the factual allegations, in that case, which are similar to the present case on hand and it was held that all the proceedings taken by the Special Officer were against a dead person including the ultimate final statement under Section 9 and proceedings under Sections 10(1) to 10(3) of the Act were all taken against a dead person and are non- est and does not give rise to any legal consequence. Consequently, this Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition.
11. In my view, the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid order and all proceedings taken by the second respondent commencing from issuance of notice under Section 6(2) of the Act and culminating into the alleged taking of possession under Section 10(6) of the Act vide panchanama dated 11.03.2008 are clearly void, having been taken against a dead person. Moreover, all the said proceedings were taken against one ‘N. Mallaiah’ whereas the pattadar of the land was ‘E. Mallaiah’ and none of the proceedings were neither served on the legal heirs of E. Mallaiah nor on the said N. Mallaiah.
Even otherwise, there is complete non-compliance of the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder.
The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and there shall be a Mandamus declaring all proceedings taken by the second respondent in File No.F1/3272/6(1)/06 with respect to land of the petitioners forming part of Sy.Nos.30 and 31 of Guttala Begumpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as void, inoperative and ultravires the Act and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to use, enjoy and possess the respective plots purchased by them from out of the aforesaid land in view of the Repeal Act with effect from 27.03.2008. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 28, 2014 DSK