Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mills, Rep by its Managing Partner, Kancharla Kanaka Rao, aged 71 years, R/0 54-20/6-1 A, Plot No.19, Dairy Officers Colony, Road No.2, Vijayawada 520008 ...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (ULC) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶13

Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Revenue Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶14

The District Collector, Krishna District, Andhra^Pradesh

¶15

The Joint Collector, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

¶16

The TahsNdhar, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

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

¶19

i&0 nature of Mandamus declaring the high-handed action of 4th Respondent ini : 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

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

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 4^"^ 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

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL APHC010141442022

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO: 9054 OF 2022

¶24

Between:

¶25

Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill Rep by its Managing Partner, Kancharla Kanaka Rao, aged 71 years, R/o 54-20/6-1 A, Plot No. 19, Dairy Officers Colony, Road No.2, Vijayawada 520008

¶26

...Petitioner

¶27

AND

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (ULC) Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶29

Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶30

The District Collector, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh

¶31

The Joint Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

¶32

The Tahsildhar, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh

¶33

...Respondents

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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^sofar as the Petitioner is concerned and

¶37

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^ofUrban 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

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶39

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the 4 th Respondent in proceedings vide SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/Penamalu ru

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY

¶41

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL APHC010534432022

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO: 32829 OF 2022

¶43

Between:

¶44

Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill, Rep by its Managing Partner, Kancharla Kanaka Rao, aged 71 years, R/0 54-20/6-1 A, Plot No. 19, Dairy Officers Colony, Road No.2, Vijayawada 520008 ...Petitioner

¶45

AND

¶46

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (ULC) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶47

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Additional Secretary,

¶48

r Revenue (ULC) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶49

Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Revenue Department^

¶50

Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶51

Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

¶52

The District Collector, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh

¶53

The Joint Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

¶54

The Tahsildhar, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh 8. Special Deputy Tahsildhar, Urban Land Ceiling, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

¶55

...Respondents

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

same are served on the Petitioner which is mandatory^underthe procedure contemplated under Section 10 of the Act^33of1976 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14, 19,^{21and300-Aofthe} Constitution of India and consequently set aside the^sameand c) declaring the various Alleged Orders/Steps/Notices^stated to be issued by the Respondents under Section 10(1) to 10(5)^oftheAct 33 of 1976 including the Alleged Panchnama conducted by the 8 th 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^{orsurrendered} is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently declaring^{alltheactions} stood abated by virtue of the Repeal of Act 33 of 1976

¶60

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶61

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} 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^underSection 10(1) to 10(5) of the Act 33 of 1976 including the Alleged Panchnama conducted by the 8th Respondent under Section 10(6)^{oftheAct33of1976}

¶62

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY

¶63

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 8: THE ADVOCATE^GENERAL The Court made the following Common Order:

¶64

APHC010078062022

¶65

Bi5:^

¶66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶67

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶68

[3331]

¶69

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶70

PRESENT

¶71

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶72

WRIT PETITION Nos: 4860. 9054 & 32829/2022

¶73

WRIT PETITION NO: 4860/2022

¶74

Between:

¶75

1.SRI LAKSHMI MODERN RICE MILLS, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER KANCHARLA KANAKA RAO. AGED 71 YEARS, R/0 5420/6-1A, PLOT N0.19, DAIRY OFFICERS COLONY. ROAD NO 2 VIJAYAWADA 520008

¶76

...PETITIONER

¶77

AND

¶78

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT. VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶79

2.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶80

3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶81

4.THE JOINT COLLECTOR, f “ URBAN LAND CEILING OFFICE,

¶82

VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶83

5.THE TAHSILDHAR, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH

¶84

...RESPONDENT{S):

¶85

Page 2 of 22

¶86

SRS.J W P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶87

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 Respondentto remove notice displayed on 09.02.2022 and pass

¶88

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶89

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} 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

¶90

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶91

1.N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY

¶92

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶93

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶94

WRIT PETITION NO: 9054/2022

¶95

Between:

¶96

1.SRI LAKSHMI MODERN RICE MILL,, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER KANCHARLA KANAKA RAO, AGED 71 YEARS, RIO 5420/6-1 A, PLOT NO.19, DAIRY OFFICERS COLONY, ROAD N0.2, VIJAYAWADA 520008

¶97

...PETITIONER

¶98

AND

¶99

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT

¶100

SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶101

SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶102

2.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶103

3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶104

4.THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILING OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶105

5.THE TAHSILDHAR, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH

¶106

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶107

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^{9andSection10} 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^{thePetitionerisconcerned} 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/PenamaIu^ru 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-AofConstitutionof} India and pass

¶108

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶109

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶110

Page 4 of 22

¶111

SRS.j W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶112

t

¶113

suspend the operation of Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the 4th Respondent in proceedings vide SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/Penamalu^ru and pass

¶114

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶115

1.N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY

¶116

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶117

1 .THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶118

WRIT PETITION NO: 32829/2022

¶119

Between:

¶120

1.SRI LAKSHMI MODERN RICE MILL, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER KANCHARLA KANAKA RAO, AGED 71 YEARS, R/0 5420/6-1 A, PLOT N0.19, DAIRY OFFICERS COLONY, ROAD N0.2, VIJAYAWADA 520008

¶121

...PETITIONER

¶122

AND

¶123

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶124

2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶125

3.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶126

4.COMMISSIONER OF LAND REFORMS AND URBAN LAND CEILINGS, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶127

5.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶128

6.THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILING OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶129

SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶130

7.THE TAHSILDHAR, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH

¶131

8.SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDHAR, URBAN LAND CEIUNG, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶132

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 N0.828/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^{onthePetitionersoon} 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^{setasidethesameand} 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^{areservedonthe} 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^setasidethe same and c) declaring the various Alleged Orders/Steps/Notices^statedtobe issued by the Respondents under Section 10(1) to 10(5)^{oftheAct33of1976} including the Alleged Panchnama conducted by the Stn Respondent under Section 10(6) of the Act 33 of 1976 without serving^{NoticeonthePetitioneror} allowing the Petitioner to exercise his option to select^{thelandtoberetained} 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

¶133

lA NO; 1 OF 2022

¶134

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} 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^underSection 10(1) to 10(5) of the Act 33 of 1976 including the Alleged Panchnama

¶135

Page 6 of 22

¶136

SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶137

conducted by the 8th Respondent under Section 10(6)^{oftheAct33of1976} and pass

¶138

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶139

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} 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

¶140

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶141

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} 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 »A Respondent record by allowing the leave petition in^{theaboveWritPetition} and pass

¶142

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶143

1.N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY

¶144

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶145

1 .THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶146

The Court made the following:

¶147

:: COMMON ORDER::

¶148

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:

¶149

(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^{andothersenteredintoa} 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

¶150

Page 7 of 22

¶151

SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶152

Partner made an application to Poranki Gram Panchayat^{on21.03.1984to} 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^{fortheconstruction} 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.

¶153

(b) The Managing Partner of the petitioner started operations in a rice mill and operated till May 2021. The premises^{wereleasedoutfor} 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.

¶154

(c) Be that as it may, respondent No.4 pasted a notice^onthewallon 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.

¶155

(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.

¶156

A counter affidavit was fHed 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

¶157

Page 8 of 22

¶158

SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶159

the memo dated 28.10.1986 and the consequential proceedings under Section 10 of the ULC Act, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32829^of2022. 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,^{dated31.07.1986.} 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.

¶160

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.

¶161

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.

¶162

The Collector, Krishna in D.Dis.8037/84, dated 02.01.1986 recommended for exemption, subject to usual conditions^astheland in question is outside the Master Plan Area, but within the Urban Agglomeration and as this is an industry.

¶163

The Commissioner addressed the report of the Collector, and requested to grant exemption.”

¶164

SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶165

Page 9 of 22

¶166

Separate counter affidavits have been filed in W.P.Nos.4860,^9054of 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.

¶167

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.N0.343/4A of Poranki Village.

¶168

(b) The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo N0.828/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,^{utilizedorintendedtobe} 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,^{unlessthelandowner} 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.

¶169

(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.

¶170

Page 10 of 22

¶171

SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶172

(d) The proceedings under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the^Actwere 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.

¶173

(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^{dated06.09.1984.} 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.

¶174

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.

¶175

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating^{thecontentsmade} in the affidavit, would further contend that the proceedings^{oftheGovernment} vide Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, were^{notcommunicatedto} the petitioner. Learned counsel would also submit that the procedure mandated under Section 10(1), 10(2) and 10(5) of the^{Actwasnotadheredto.} 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.

¶176

SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶177

Page 11 of 22

¶178

had taken on 03.01.2007 before in point in time, itself discerns the violations at every stage.

¶179

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.

¶180

The points for consideration are:

¶181

Whether the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide Memo N0.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, were communicated to the petitioner or not?

¶182

Whether respondent No.4 adhered to the procedure as^mandated under Sections 10(1), 10(3), 10(5) & 10(6) of the Act?

¶183

Whether the possession of the property was taken on 03.01.2007 or not?

¶184

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?

¶185

Since all points for consideration are interrelated, they have been discussed simultaneously.

¶186

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^{dated31.07.1986} 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^{inW.P.No.6512of} 1983 and denying the granting of exemption, and further directing the vendor

¶187

Page 12 of 22

¶188

SRS.j W P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶189

to file the statement under Section 6(1) of the Act before the competent authority.

¶190

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.

¶191

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^{isunawareofthe} same. Whereas, in the counter affidavit, it was contended that the proceedings vide Ex.PI were communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner is aware of the same. When the petitioner^{deniedcommunication} and the respondents asserted communication, the respondents^shouldhave 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 communicatedto 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.

¶192

The Madras High Court in The Secretary of State for^{IndiainCouncil} Vs. Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu and Ors.^ held^thus:

¶193

"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^{hehaswrittenand} write something else."

¶194

(1911) ILR 34 Mad 151

¶195

SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶196

Page 13 of 22 -! '■

¶197

¶198

In Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus;

¶199

"12 Therefore to make the opinion amount to a decision^ofthe 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^Stateandthat person can be bound by that order. "

¶200

In State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika^, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

¶201

11 It is plain that mere passing of an order of dismissal^wouldnot be effective unless it is published and communicated^to the officer concerned."

¶202

This Court reiterated the same principle in Samasetti Nagabhushanam Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors'*.

¶203

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^{authoritiesfailedto} adhere to the procedure under Section 10 of the Act.

¶204

Section 10 of the Act envisages the acquisition of^{vacantlandoverthe} 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

¶205

^ AIR 1963 SC 395 ^ AIR 1966 SC 1313, MAN U/AP/1215/2023

¶206

Page 14 of 22

¶207

Wlm SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶208

declaring the excess land referred to in the notification published under sub section (1) of the Act and determining the provision^{thatthelandisvestedwith} the State Government.

¶209

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.

¶210

In para No.4 of the counter-affidavit, it was stated^asfollows;

¶211

“It is further submitted that U/s 10(1) and 10(3) of^theActwere 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.8.05.1997and} 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^{03.01.2007U/s} 10(6) of the Act.”

¶212

As pointed out supra, no date was mentioned in the^{AndhraPradesh} 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.

¶213

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^{theStateGovernmentorto} 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

¶214

SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶215

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^{wouldindicatethat} the possession of the land was taken on 03.01.2007,^{andtheauthorization} 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-affidavi^tdid not explain the discrepancy, a crucial aspect. Ex.P7, Panchanama^wouldfurther discern that the land of an extent 3113.47 square meters^{wastakenoverin} the presence of witnesses on 03.01.2007 and the boundaries^{werementioned} as East: R.S.No.342, West: R.S.No.343/3, South: R.S.No.343/4B^andNorth: R.S.No.343/2. This instance makes the things more than^{discerniblethatthe} respondent authorities failed to adhere to the procedure^{underSec10ofthe} Act.

¶216

Regarding the service of notice under Section 10(5)^ofthe Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that^{nonoticeunderSection} 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.

¶217

Learned Single Judge of Composite High Court in P.^{LakshmiKantha} Rao and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others®, regarding service of notice at para Nos.21 & 22, observed as^follows:

¶218

On 2.2.2008, the 2'^^ respondent approved the noting and reference to notice issued under Section 10(5) on 1.9.2007^ismade. The onus, as noted above, is on the 2"^ 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,^{theserviceofnotice} on the persons in possession of surplus land under Section 10(5) of the

¶219

L(2015) 3 ALD 248

¶220

Page 16 of 22

¶221

SRJS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶222

Act 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.

¶223

The ratio of the decisions In Hariram’s (supra) and Gajanan Kamlya Patil’s case (supra), applies with full fours^{tothecaseonhand.} The definite case of respondents is that after notice^underSection 10(5), possession under Section 10(6) was taken over^on 13.3.2008. As already noticed, the burden is on the 2'^'^ 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^{inferredfromnote} file, but should be proved by primary evidence. The^{additionalcounter-} affidavit and original record belie this assertion. At the time of taking up steps under Section 10(6), the note file does not refer^toservice of notice under Section 10(5), but it refers to Issue^{of noticeunderSection} 10(5) on 1.9.2007. From the record it is evident that there^is breachⁱⁿ following mandatory procedure and the respondents cannot claim possession of subject land for any purpose.”

¶224

In fact, the learned Judge observed that the service^{ofnoticeunder} Section 10(5) of the Act cannot be inferred from a^note file but should be proved by primary evidence.

¶225

SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶226

The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v.^{Hariram®,while} dealing with 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, observed as^follows:

¶227

‘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 v/ord ‘may’ in both the sub-sections^{hastobeunderstood} as “shall” because a court charged with the task of enforcing the statute to decide the consequences that the legislature intended^tofollowfrom failure to implement the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section^{10isthatitmight} result the land holder being dispossessed without notice,^{therefore,the} word ‘may’ has to be read as ‘shall’.

¶228

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^ordelivering possession after notice, under Section 10(5) or dispossession^byuseof force, it cannot be said that the State Government has taken possession of the vacant land. ”

¶229

Thus, the discussion supra, this Court concludes that^{nonoticeunder} Sec 10(5) of the Act was served on the petitioner.

¶230

The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the Effect^{oftheRepealAct,} observed as follows;

¶231

‘39. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3)^ofSection10 would not confer any right on the State Government^{tohavedefacto} possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. State has^{toestablishthat} there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land^{orsurrenderand} delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5)^{ofSection10or}

"(2013) 4 ,SCC.280

Page 18 of 22

a

SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶236

forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner^{orholdercanclaim} the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The State^GovernmentIn this appeal could not establish any of those situations^andhencethe High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. ”

¶237

The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Andhra Pradesh Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tashsildar & others, ETC^, considered the earlier judgements vis-a-vis the procedure mandated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act observed as follows:

¶238

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^{StateGovernment} 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^asituation of forceful dispossession.

¶239

The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3)^ofSection10 would not confer any right on the State Government^{tohavedefacto} 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^{orsurrenderand} delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5)^{ofSection10or} forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure

¶240

'2025 INSC 274

¶241

SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶242

W Page 19 of 22

¶243

to establish any of those situations, the landowner^{orholdercanclaim} the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. In^{thecaseonhand,} the State Government has in our considered view not^been able to establish any of those situations and hence the learned^SingleJudge was right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled^togetthe benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999.

¶244

The effect of Repeal Act, 1999 is further clear. If^thelandowner remains in physical possession, then irrespective of^hislandbeing declared surplus and/or entry being made in favour^ofthe State in revenue records, he will not be divested of his rights. Even if compensation is received that also will not dis-entitle^{himtoclaimthe} benefit if compensation is refunded, provided he is^{inactualphysical} 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.

¶245

The propositions of law governing the issue of possession in context with Sections 10(5) and 10(6) respectively^oftheAct, 1976 read with Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 may be^{summedupthus:} [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.

¶246

[2] It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent^authority or the State to take possession strictly as permitted^inlaw.

¶247

[3] In case the possession is purported to have been taken^under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged^tolookinto whether “taking of such possession” is valid or Invalidated^onanyofthe considerations in law.

¶248

[4] The possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal^Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only.

¶249

Page 20 of 22

¶250

SRS.J W,P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 iV

¶251

[5] The mere vesting of “land declared surplus” under the Act ]A/ithout resuming “de facto possession” is of no consequence^andthe 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^{fromthefailureto} implement the requirement.

¶252

[7] The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3)^ofSection10 would not confer any right on the State Government^{tohavedefacto} possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18^'' March, 1999.

¶253

[8] The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record^that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land^{orsurrenderand} delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (6)^{ofSection10or} forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section^10.”

¶254

Concerning the conduct of panchanama, the Hon’ble Apex^Court in para No.45, observed as follows;

¶255

“.... 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^overbefore 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. ”

¶256

In the case at hand, the panchanama said to have been^conducted while taking possession does not inspire the confidence^ofthe Court. The latches., according to this Court, are (1) Non-mentioning of boundaries except

¶257

SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022

¶258

F»age 21 of 22

¶259

survey numbers; (2) taking possession even before the^{authorization(3)non} service of notice and the existence and functioning^{ofthemillevenafterthe} possession was allegedly taken by the respondent authorities. These discrepancies demonstrate that the panchanama and the^{takingofpossession} under it are factually incorrect, and it can be termed^{aspaperpossession.}

¶260

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^{Section10(1)and} 10(3) of the Act i.e. publication of Gazettes. Respondent^{No.4failedtoserve} notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. Even before^{theauthorisationunder} Ex.P6, possession was allegedly taken under Ex.P7 Panchanama;^however, no possession was taken under the Panchanama. Section^{3oftheActdoes} not apply to the case at hand, since the respondent^{authoritiesfailedtoprove} that the possession of the land was taken over.

¶261

dated 36. Given the discussion supra, the Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1, 28.10.1986, is hereby set aside, and the consequential^{proceedingsunder} Sections 10(1), 10(5) of the Act and the alleged panchanama^underSection 10(6) of the Act are declared as abated by the repeal^oftheAct.

¶262