Allowed

M/s. Fertilizer Corportion of India Employees Cooperative v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep byits Principal Secretary to

Telangana HC29 Apr 2011WP/19652/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that Section 19(1)(v) of the ULC Act exempts registered co-operative housing societies from Chapter III provisions. The court set aside final ULC statements for non-issuance of statutory notices to the petitioner society and its members in possession, violating natural justice. Proceedings stood abated by the ULC Repeal Act, 1999.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 07.09.2007 and 04.06.2005 set aside; writ petition allowed; ULC proceedings abated.

M/s. Fertilizer Corportion of India Employees… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

W.P. No. 19652 of 2007

¶3

O r d e r:

¶4

The petitioner, namely M/s. Fertilizer Corporation of India Employees Co-operative Housing Society, represented by its Secretary, have filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to grant the following relief:

¶5

To issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring as void and unenforceable the final statement issued by the 2^nd respondent in proceedings in C.C. No. H1/1344/76 dated 04.06.2005 in respect of land in an extent of Acs. 20.00 in Sy. Nos. 124/2 and 125/2 situated at Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as confirmed in revision by the 1^st respondent in proceedings in Memo No.25101/UC.II(3)/05-4 dated 07.09.2007 as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the rules made thereunder, vitiated by principles of natural justice, offending Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, by declaring that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 does not apply to the petitioner and its holding, and pass such other or further order or orders, as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶6

The petitioner states that one Smt. Shanta Hemraj is the original pattadar of agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 15.32 guntas in Sy. No. 124 and Acs. 15.26 guntas in Sy. No. 125 of Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed vide Document No. 332/1964, dated 25.06.1964, after obtaining permission from the then Tahsildar, vide proceedings in Dis. No. A3/1312/64, dated 22.05.1964.

¶7

After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ULC Act’), the petitioner states that the original pattedar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the declarant’), filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, before respondent No.2, namely the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. H1/1344/76, with respect to the land held by her, by describing the nature of the land as “agricultural”, even though under the provisions of the ULC Act, she was not required to file any such declaration.

¶8

While so, the petitioner states that HUDA issued land use certificate to the declarant, vide letter No. 1517/81/MPU/HUDA, dated 25.05.1980, certifying that the user of the land in question, in the

¶9

master plan, is described as “agricultural”. Subsequent thereto, the government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 391, Municipal Administration, dated 23.09.1980, extending the master plan to Gachibowli village. Even though the master plan was extended to Gachibowli village, wherein the lands in question, are situated, but still in the master plan, the user of the land in question, was shown not changed, and it was shown as “agricultural”.

¶10

Subsequent thereto, the petitioner states that the declarant out of Acs. 35.00 of land held by her, she entered into an agreement of sale with them on 03.11.1980, for sale of Acs. 20.00 of land i.e. Acs. 5.18 guntas in Sy. No. 124 and Acs. 14.22 guntas in Sy.

¶11

No. 125 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the land in question’), in their favour. The declarant, on 12.02.1981, submitted representation to respondent No.2, requesting him to inform as to what happened to her declaration. Responding to her request, the petitioner states that respondent No.2 on 05.05.1981, informed the declarant that as the nature of the land held by her, was “agricultural”, the provisions of ULC Act are not applicable. Thereafter, the declarant, executed registered sale deed, with respect to the land in question, in favour of the petitioner, vide Document No. 4453/1981 on 04.06.1981.

¶12

After purchasing the land in question, the petitioner states that on 12.07.1981, they applied to the Gram Panchayat, Kothaguda, for sanction of layout. The Gram Panchayat, Kothaguda, having considered and examined the layout, sanctioned the same on 11.08.1981. In accordance with the sanctioned layout, the petitioner states that they divided the land into plots and allotted them to their members, who having purchased the same from the petitioner, are in possession and enjoyment thereof, since the date of purchase.

¶13

The petitioner states the provisions of Section 19(1)(v) of the ULC Act, provide that nothing in Chapter III of the ULC Act, shall apply to any “vacant land” held by a Housing Co-operative Society. As the land in question, was brought within the limits of HUDA, the petitioner states that they applied to HUDA for regularization of the Gram Panchayat layout. While so, the petitioner states that the government issued orders in G.O. Ms.

¶14

No. 583, Municipal Administration Department, dated 07.11.1996, converting the user of the land in question from “agricultural” to “residential” after receiving the development charges from the petitioner.

¶15

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner states that on the request of HUDA, the Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, submitted report in Lr. No. G-2/GPL(B)/434/97, dated 18.08.1997, for regularization of the Gram Panchayat layout. Thereafter, HUDA addressed letter in Lr. No. 7163/P7/RL/HUDA/97, dated 21.07.1998, requesting the petitioner to submit ULC clearance, for regularizing the Gram Panchayat layout. On 23.03.2001, the petitioner applied for ULC clearance, narrating the facts to respondent No.2. On 31.08.2001, the petitioner addressed reminder letter to respondent No.2, requesting him to give ULC clearance. Again vide letter No. 1778/P7/RL/H/01, dated 03.11.2001, HUDA informed the petitioner to submit ULC clearance to regularize the Gram Panchayat layout.

¶16

The petitioner states that on 07.05.2005, respondent No.2, instead of giving clearance in respect of the land held by them, activated the declaration filed by the declarant in C.C. No. H1/1344/76, and it is the case of the petitioner that, without issuing any notice to them, issued draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act. Thereafter, on 04.06.2005, issued final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act. On 21.06.2005, respondent No.2, issued notice to the petitioner, calling upon them, to get the land in question, regularized in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, by paying regularization charges, which was received by the petitioner on 24.06.2005. Thereafter, on 24.06.2005, the notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, was published in the official gazette.

¶17

The petitioner states that on coming to know about the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act and final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, and the notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, on 19.07.2005, they filed their objections before respondent No.2, requesting him to modify/rescind the said proceedings, as the same are without jurisdiction and were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2, without considering the same, on 22.07.2005, published notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, stating that the lands in question stands vest with the Government w.e.f. 06.08.2005.

¶18

The petitioner, therefore, questioning the final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, and the proceedings that preceded and

¶19

followed the said final statement, filed revision under Section 34 of the ULC Act, before respondent No.1, namely the Government, requesting them to revise the orders of respondent No.2, inter alia contending that the entire ULC proceedings in relation to the land in question, right from the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, are without jurisdiction and invalid, because they being a Housing Co-operative Society, are exempted from the applicability of the provisions of Chapter – III of the ULC Act, which contains Sections 3 to 24 of the ULC Act, with respect to the land in question purchased and held by them. However, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1, without considering the contentions and grounds urged by them in support of

¶20

the revision, vide proceedings dated 07.09.2007, rejected the revision filed by the petitioner and confirmed the final statement and orders dated 04.06.2005 passed by respondent No. 2. Hence, the petitioner, questioning the said orders dated 07.09.2007, passed by respondent No.1, rejecting their revision and confirming the orders dated 04.06.2005, passed by respondent No.2, in the declaration filed by the declarant, filed the present writ petition.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner-society submitted that as the land held by the declarant was “agricultural”, as is evident from the declaration filed by her under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act and the certificate dated 05.05.1981, issued by respondent No.2, under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, permitting the declarant to sell the land, the provisions of ULC Act are not applicable, and as such, the orders passed by respondent No.2 on the declaration filed by the declarant, as confirmed by respondent No.1 in revision, being wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, are liable to be set aside.

¶22

He further submitted that the petitioner is a Housing Cooperative Society, and since after purchasing the land in question under registered sale deed dated 04.06.1981 from the declarant, the petitioner obtained sanction of the layout from the Gram Panchayat, Kothaguda, on 11.08.1981, and converted the user of the land from “agricultural” to “residential”, having regard to the provisions of Section 19 (1)(v) of the ULC Act, the land in question purchased and held by the petitioner, is exempted from the applicability of the provisions of Chapter III of the ULC Act, which contains Sections 8 to 24, and as such, all the orders passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1 in revision, being illegal and without jurisdiction, are

¶23

liable to be set aside.

¶24

He further submitted that respondent No.2, is aware of the purchase made by the petitioner of the land in question from the declarant, as is evident from the order dated 07.05.2005 passed by him, wherein he made a reference to the purchase made by the petitioner and their members being in possession of the plots. However, before passing the said order, respondent No.2, has not issued notice as is required under Rule 5 of the ULC Rules. Therefore, the order dated 07.05.2005, passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, in revision, being violative of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. In support of this argument, he relied on the decision of this Court in K.B. Surendra Kumar vs. Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling^[1] , which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 541 and 641 of 2000. He also relied on judgment of this Court in Tahera Yousuf Kadri v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh^[2] .

¶25

He further submitted that the petitioner and their members are in possession of the land in question, and even though respondent No.2 is aware of the same, however, without issuing notice to them in writing, as is required under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, calling upon them to deliver possession of the land within thirty days of its service, merely served notice dated 04.10.2005 under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, on the declarant, and allegedly on the ground that the declarant failed to surrender the land, passed orders dated 11.01.2006 under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, for taking over possession of the land in question, and allegedly took over possession of the land in question on 30.01.2006. He submitted that since possession of the land in question, is allegedly taken by respondent No.2, without issuing notice to the petitioner and their members, who are in possession of the land in question, as is required under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, calling upon them to deliver possession of the land within 30 days, the alleged taking over possession of the land in question, is illegal and arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of the provisions of Section 10(5) and (6) of the ULC Act. In support of this argument that an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice, which infringes fundamental rights, is a nullity, placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Nawabkhan v. State of Gujara t^[3] .

¶26

He submitted that the original file, copies of which one of the

¶27

members of the petitioner society obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 contains only pages 1 to 18, but the record produced by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Court, show some more pages are added. Thus, it becomes clear that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have fabricated the record so as to make it appear that possession of the land in question was already taken over.

¶28

He submitted that since the petitioners and their members are in possession of the land in question, and possession of the land in question having not been taken from them, having regard to the provisions of the Repeal Act, which came into effect in the State of Andhra Pradesh, from 27.03.2008, the entire ULC proceedings shall stand abated. He thus prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, confirming the order of respondent No.2, be set aside.

¶29

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counters, which are more or less on similar lines. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on their behalf reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner is neither the owner of the land in question nor they filed any declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, and therefore, they have no locus standi to file the writ petition.

¶30

He submitted that the declarant filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, in respect of the land in question, on 12.08.1976. Thereafter, she obtained certificate dated 05.05.1981, under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, from respondent No.2, for sale of the land in question in favour of one Sri. Y.P. Ramaiah, as agricultural land, but in violation thereof, she sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 04.06.1981. Since the declarant sold the land in question in violation of the Section 2(o) certificate obtained by her, the sale transaction entered into by her with the petitioner, is void and invalid.

¶31

He further submitted that even though the certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, was issued to the declarant, for sale of the land in question as agricultural land, however, the petitioner having purchased the same, converted the same into plots, and sold them to their members, which is violative of the Section 2(o) certificate. In support of his argument that in case of change in land use, the explanation appended to sub-section (2) of Section 6 read with Sections 2(q) and 2(o) of the ULC Act, gets attracted, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in (W.P. No. 10103/1985) in the

¶32

case of Sulakshana Bai v. Government of A.P.

¶33

He further contended that since by the time the petitioner purchased the land in question, Gachibowli village, where the land in question, is situated was brought within the extended plan, the petitioner ought to have obtained exemption from the Government under Section 20 of the ULC Act, and since the petitioner purchased the land in question without obtaining exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act from the Government, the purchase made by them is null and void. He further submitted that the petitioner after purchasing the land in question, before developing the land in question into plots, ought to have obtained approval of the layout from HUDA as required under Section 26 of the ULC Act, but the petitioner without obtaining approval of the layout from HUDA and without obtaining permission as required under

¶34

Section 26 of the ULC Act, developed the land into plots, which is illegal and invalid. The petitioner neither filed statement under Section 15 of the ULC Act after transfer of the land from the declarant nor brought it to the notice of the competent authority enabling him to initiate action under the provisions of the ULC Act.

¶35

He further submitted that the original pattadar filed statement in Form-I under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, declaring the land in question held by her in Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, describing the nature of land as “agricultural land”. As the provisions of explanation appended to sub-section (2) of Section 6 read with Section 2(q) and 2(o) of the ULC Act, are attracted, the entire land held by the declarant, including the land in question, sold by the declarant to the petitioner, was computed to the holding of the declarant, treating the land in question also as vacant land. And accordingly, treating the entire extent of land as vacant land, respondent No.2, issued draft statement under

¶36

Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, calling upon the declarant to file her objections, if any, within 30 days of its receipt, and in response thereto, the declarant filed petition on 21.05.2005 stating that she has no objection with regard to the surplus area determined. Thereafter, respondent No.2 having conducted an enquiry into the declaration filed by the declarant under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, and having found that the land in Sy. Nos. 122 and 125 of Gachibowli village falls within Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and that it is earmarked for agricultural purpose in the master plan. He further found that the

¶37

declarant had sold away the land in question in an extent of Acs. 20.00 in Sy. Nos. 124 and 125 of Gachibowli village in favour of the petitioner on 24.07.1981, who is other than the person named in the certificate issued by the Special Officer under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, passed orders under Section 8(4) and issued final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act on 04.06.2005, confirming the draft statement issued under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act without any alterations.

¶38

Thereafter, after completing the formalities under the ULC Act, notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 20.06.2005 and got published in A.P. Gazette No. 123, dated 24.06.2005. After publication of notification under Section 10(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act, was issued on 21.07.2005 and got published in A.P. Gazette No. 154, dated 22.07.2005 vesting the surplus land in the Government free from all encumbrances w.e.f. 06.08.2005. Thereafter, notification under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 04.10.2005 and got served on 10.10.2005 asking the declarant to surrender the land within 30 days from the date of its receipt. The declarant failed to surrender the land within the stipulated period. Therefore, order under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued on 11.01.2006 authorizing the Enquiry Officer in the Office of the Special Officer, ULC Hyderabad, to take over possession of the surplus land and hand it over to the MRO concerned. The Enquiry Officer having taken over possession of the surplus land on 30.01.2006 handed over possession of the same to the MRO on 30.01.2006.

¶39

He further contended that aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 8(4) and issuance of final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act on 04.06.2005, confirming the draft statement issued under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act without any alterations, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Government under Section 34 of the ULC Act 28.08.2005, and the Government having called for a report, which disclosed that the petitioner sold the land in question as plots to their members even before obtaining permission for change of land use from agricultural to non-agricultural, and as such, they have lost right and title over the land, and therefore, they have no locus standi, to file revision, because no land is held by them, rejected the same by order dated 07.09.2007, and more so, when the case of the members of the petitioner, for regularization was being considered in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, and in fact, out of 115, the cases of 109

¶40

were considered and approved by the Government, for regularization in terms of the extant G.Os.

¶41

He submitted that by the time the Government of Andhra Pradesh adopted Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 w.e.f. 27.03.2008, no proceedings were pending, and the writ petition in W.P. No. 19303 of 2007 filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as infructuous when it was brought to the notice of the Court that that revision filed by the petitioner was rejected, and the possession of the land in question, was already taken over by the Government, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

¶42

The learned counsel for impleaded respondent Nos. 3 and 4, submitted that they are bona fide purchasers of the plots from the petitioner society. That pursuant to declaration of the land in question as surplus, notices were issued to them calling upon them to regularize their plots, and in response thereto, their members filed applications under G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002 accompanied with requisite fee, for regularization, Hence, he prayed that the interest of the members of respondent No.3 be protected.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner society, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3-FCI Colony Plot Owners Welfare Association.

¶44

In the light of the rival contentions, as noted supra, the following questions do arise for consideration in the writ petition.

¶45

1. Whether the sale of the land in question, made by the original pattedar, in favour of a person other than the one in whose name is mentioned in the Certificate obtained by the original pattedar, under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, is bad and invalid in law?

¶46

2. Whether the respondents were justified in including the land purchased and held by the petitioner society into the holding of the original pattedar for the purpose of determining the excess land holding?

¶47

3. Whether the provisions of Chapter – III of the ULC Act, much less the provisions of Section 6(2) read with Sections 2(q) and 2(o) of the ULC Act, are attracted to the land purchased and held by the petitioner society and whether the petitioner society was required to obtain exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act before purchasing the land in question?

¶48

4. Whether before taking possession of the surplus land, the

¶49

respondents were under an obligation to issue notices to the petitioner society and their members under the provisions of the ULC Act, who claim to be in possession and persons interested in the land? If so, then what would happen to the orders passed by respondent No.2 under the provisions of the ULC Act?

¶50

5. Whether the impugned proceeding dated 07.09.2007 of respondent No.1, which confirmed the orders dated 04.06.2005 of respondent No.2, and the proceedings that preceded their issuance in relation to the land in question, stand abated and are liable to be set aside, in view of the Repeal Act, which came into effect in the State of Andhra Pradesh, w.e.f. 27.03.2008?

¶51

In re question No.1:

¶52

The contention of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that as the original pattedar obtained certificate dated 05.05.1981 under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, for sale of the land in question in favour of Sri Y.P. Ramaiah and others, the sale of the land in question, made by her in favour of the petitioner society, who is none other than the person named in the certificate, is bad and invalid, cannot be accepted. There is no doubt that the original pattedar obtained certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, for sale of the land in question in favour of, one Y.P. Ramaiah, but it is the specific case of the petitioner society that Sri Y.P. Ramaiah, in whose favour, the original pattedar obtained certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, for sale of land in question, is no other than one of the members of the petitioner society. The certificate dated 05.05.1981 issued by the Special Officer, reads that “it is valid if the lands are sold to Sarvasri Y.P. Ramaiah S/o. Kanthaiah and others”, which indicates that it can be sold to more than one person. To show that Sri. Y.P. Ramaiah, is one of the members of the society, and that even today, he continues to be one of the members of the society, the petitioner society produced xerox copy of the extract of the Plot Allotment Register. A perusal of the same, it would become clear that the name of Sri. Y.P. Ramaiah, finds place at Serial

¶53

No. 156. Since the certificate dated 05.05.1981 issued by the Special Officer, permits the sale of land to Y.P. Ramaiah and others, I hold that the sale of the land in question, made by the original pattedar, in favour of the petitioner society, under the registered sale deed dated 04.06.1981, is valid in law and accordingly answer issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner society and against the respondents.

¶54

In re question No.2:

¶55

The original pattedar after filing the declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, obtained certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, for sale of the land in question in favour of one Sri. Y.P. Ramaiah and others, as “agricultural land”. Having obtained the said certificate, the original pattedar sold the land in question, as “agricultural land” to one Sr. Y.P. Ramaiah, who as already noted supra, is no other than one of the members of the petitioner society, under registered sale deed dated 04.06.1981. As on the date i.e. in the year 2005, when respondent No.2 took up the declaration filed by the petitioner under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, for determining the excess land, the land in question, stood already sold in favour of the petitioner society. In fact, the respondents are aware of the factum of purchase made by the petitioner-society of the land in question, as is evident from the impugned orders, wherein they have made a reference, about the purchase made by the petitioner-society. Since the original pattedar had already sold the land in question, she had no right whatsoever over the land in question, much less to give consent to the respondents for inclusion of the land in question, for computing the same in her land holding, for the purpose of determining the excess vacant land, and more so when she had sold the land in question, as agricultural land, after obtaining certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act. That being so, I fail to understand how the respondents could have acted on the consent of the original pattedar, and much less taken the land in question into the land holding of the original pattedar, while computing and determining the excess land held by the original pattedar. Hence, I hold that the respondents were not justified in taking the land in question purchased by the petitioner into the holding of the original pattedar for the purpose of computing and determining the excess land holding of the original pattedar. In re question No.3:

¶56

The land in question, admittedly, in the extended master plan of 1980 was earmarked as “agricultural zone”. The land in question, was sold by the original pattedar to the petitioner society as “agricultural land”. The petitioner society, having purchased the land, desirous of making house plots for allotments to its members, applied to the Gram Panchayat, Kothaguda, for sanction of layout on 12.07.1981. The Gram Panchayat, Kothaguda, having examined the layout submitted by the petitioner society, vide orders dated 11.08.1981 sanctioned the

¶57

layout. Pursuant to the sanction, the petitioner society, as per the sanctioned layout, divided the land in question into plots, and allotted them to their members. As even after carving out the land in question into plots, the nature of the land still remained “agricultural”, the petitioner society submitted application for change of land user from “agricultural” to “residential”.

¶58

Acting on the said application, the Government, issued G.O. Ms. No. 583 M.A. Department, dated 07.11.1996, changing the user of the land in question from “agricultural zone” to “residential zone” in the notified Zonal Development Plan, after receiving an amount of Rs.16,18,748/- towards developmental charges, subject to the following conditions:

¶59

i) that the petitioner society should take approval and regularization of the Gram Panchayat layout from HUDA, duly following the conditions prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 367 M.A. Department dated 12.07.1988,

¶60

ii) that the applicant should leave 6 mtrs. Service road facing 150’ ft. wide old Bombay road while regularizing the layout,

¶61

iii) that the instructions issued in G.O. Ms. No. 111 M.A., regularizing the layout,

¶62

iv) that the 100 ft. wide circular railway site should be retained till the circular railway is deleted from Master Plan.

¶63

Thus from the above, it is clear that the nature of the land in question, was changed from “agricultural zone” to “residential zone” only from 07.11.1996, i.e. when the Government issued the abovementioned G.O., and prior thereto, the nature of the land was “agricultural”. Though the land in question, as noted above, was carved into plots way back in the year 1981 after obtaining layout sanction from the Gram Panchayat, Kothaguda, the fact remains that the land in question became “vacant land” only from 07.11.1996. That being so, the obligation of the petitioner society, if any, to file statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, even assuming they were holding excess vacant land, arose only from the said date.

¶64

The petitioner society, admittedly, is a registered co-operative society, and having regard to the provisions of Section 19(1)(v) of the ULC Act, the provisions of Chapter – III thereof, which contains Sections 3 to 24, are not applicable to the vacant lands held by them. The applicability or otherwise of the provisions of Chapter III of the ULC Act, which contains Sections 3 to 24, to a registered co-operative housing society, was considered by this Court in K.B. Surendra Kumar’s case, and it was held as under:

¶65

15. So far as the W.P. No. 8411 of 1992, W.P. No. 9224 of

¶66

1992 and W.P. No. 10450 of 1992 are concerned, it has to be seen that all the petitioners in the above writ petitions have acquired the land through the society and the society purchased the agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1.54 cents by a registered sale deed dated 143-1978. After the purchase the society made an application to the Grampanchayat for conversion of the land into a non-agricultural purpose and for sanctioning of the layout. Section 3 of the Act prohibits holding of excess vacant land on and from the commencement of the Act, more than the ceiling limit in the territories to which the Act applies. The Act is made applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh from 17-2-1976. Explanation 2 of Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:

¶67

If the competent authority is of opinion that:

¶68

(a) in any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, any person held on or after the 17^th day of February, 1975, and before the commencement of this Act or holds at such commencement; or

¶69

(b) in any State which adopts this Act under clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution, any person holds at the commencement of this act.

¶70

Vacant land in excess of ceiling limit then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), it may serve a notice upon such requiring him to file, within such period as may be specified in the notice, the statement referred to sub-section (1).

¶71

16. Admittedly, the land has become the vacant land only once the layout is sanctioned by the Grampanchayat or when it is converted into nonagricultural purposes i.e., 28-10-1978. Section 19 of the Act says that Chapter 3 is not applicable to certain vacant lands.

¶72

17. Section 19 of the Act reads as follows:-

¶73

“19. Chapter not to apply to certain vacant lands :- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), nothing in this Chapter shall apply to any vacant land held by:-

¶74

“………….

¶75

(v) any co-operative society being a land mortgage bank or Housing Co-operative Society, registered or deemed to be registered under any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force:

¶76

Provided that the exemption under this clause, in relating to a land mortgage bank, shall not apply to any vacant land held by it or otherwise than in satisfaction of its duties.”

¶77

18. In the present case, the date of commencement of the Act so far as survey No. 143/2 measuring Ac. 1.54 cents of land is concerned, it is only on 28-10-1978. Once the date of commencement of the Act is 28-10-1978; and on the said date if the land is held by a society, the entire Chapter III is not applicable to the above vacant land even assuming that if the land is converted into a non-agricultural purpose by the Society. That is the purport of Chapter III. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the purchase of agricultural land by the society with an intention to develop it into a vacant land and sell it to its members for the purpose of housing, will attract the provisions of the Act, cannot be accepted. The land will become vacant land only on the date when it was converted as such. Once the society has no obligation to file a

¶78

declaration under Section 6 of Act, there is no bar for the society to sell the said land to its members. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the entire transaction between the society and its members is void and the contention of the learned Government Pleader in this regard is rejected.”

¶79

The above judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 541 and 641 of 2000, wherein it was held as under:

¶80

“It is not disputed at the Bar or even during the course of the arguments that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has no application to the lands in dispute which is an agricultural land sold to a Cooperative Society. It is again not disputed that in view of the express provisions laid down in Section 19(v), to the effect:

¶81

“that nothing in this chapter shall apply to any vacant land held by any cooperative society being a land mortgage bank or a housing co-operative society, registered or deemed to be registered under any law relating to cooperative societies for the time being in force.”

¶82

the Act has no application to the lands in question.

¶83

The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Society is exempt from the operation of the Act provided it holds the land only on the date of the coming into operation of the Act. Reading of Section 19 makes it manifestly clear and categorically discernible that no such amendments are carried out to that Section. Section 19 nowhere states that only those co-operative societies that hold the agricultural lands on the date of coming into operation of the Act alone are exempt from the operation of the Act. In the circumstances, we find no force in the appeal.”

¶84

When the provisions of Chapter – III of the ULC Act, which contains Sections 3 to 24, are not made applicable to registered cooperative housing societies, the question of the petitioner society, which admittedly is a co-operative housing society, filing declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act or the provisions of Section 6(2) read with Section 2(q) and 2(o) of the ULC Act, getting attracted to the land in question, purchased by the petitioner society in the year 1981 and held by them as agricultural land till 07.11.1996, and thereafter, as “vacant land”, does not arise. Since the provisions of Chapter – III, which contain Sections 3 to 24 of the ULC are not attracted to the petitioner society, it has to be held that there was no necessity for the petitioner society to obtain any exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act, before purchasing the land in question. In re question No.4:

¶85

The original pattedar filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act on 12.08.1976. In the declaration filed by her, she described the nature of the land as “agricultural”. After filing the declaration, as already noted supra, she obtained certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act on 05.05.1981 from the Special Officer, ULC, Hyderabad, for sale of the land in question to one Sri. Y.P. Ramaiah and others. After obtaining the certificate under

¶86

Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, the original pattedar sold the land in question to the petitioner society under registered sale deed dated 04.06.1981. After purchasing the land in question, the petitioner society, submitted the layout for approval to the Gram Panchayat, Kothaguda, which approved the layout on 11.08.1961. Thereafter, the petitioner society, allotted the plots to their members.

¶87

While the matters stood thus, on the application made by the petitioner society, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 583, M.A., dated 07.11.1996, permitted the change of user of the land in question from “agricultural” to “residential”, subject to certain conditions, which inter alia, includes getting the Gram Panchayat layout, approved from HUDA. Thereafter, on the request made by HUDA, the Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, submitted report dated 18.08.1997, for regularization of the Gram Panchayat layout obtained by the petitioner society. Based on the said report, HUDA, vide letter dated 21.07.1998, called upon the petitioner society to submit the Gram Panchayat layout, for regularization. Accordingly, the petitioner, on 23.03.2001, applied for ULC clearance to the Special Officer, ULC, Hyderabad. As no action was taken thereon, the petitioner Society addressed another letter on 31.08.2001, requesting the Special Officer, ULC, Hyderabad, to issue the ULC clearance. Thereafter, HUDA, addressed another letter dated 03.11.2001, requesting the petitioner society to submit ULC clearance, for regularization of the Gram Panchayat layout.

¶88

At this point of time, it is the case of the petitioner society that the Special Officer, instead of giving ULC clearance, proceeded to consider the declaration filed by the original pattedar, and while doing so, based on the alleged consent given by the original pattedar, included the land in question purchased by the petitioner society, for the purpose of computing the land holding and determining the surplus land held by the original pattedar. Having computed so, the Special Officer, issued draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act on

¶89

07.05.2005. Thereafter, he issued final order under Section 8(4) and final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act on 04.06.2005.

¶90

Questioning the above said order dated 04.06.2005 passed by the Special Officer, under Section 8(4) and final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, the petitioner society filed revision before the Government under Section 34 of the ULC Act, contending that they purchased the land in question and that no order could have been passed without issuing notice to them. The Government, having considered the revision, vide orders dated 07.09.2007, rejected the revision filed by the petitioner society, by the impugned order dated 07.09.2007, confirmed the order dated 04.06.2005, passed by the Special Officer, and directed him to take necessary action as per the provisions of the ULC Act.

¶91

It is the case of the petitioner society that they being the purchaser of the land in question and they through their members being in possession of the land in question, are persons interested in the land, and that even though the Special Officer, is aware of the purchase made by the petitioner society of the land in question, yet without issuing any notice to them, as required under the provisions of the ULC Act, has issued the draft statement under Section 8(1) and passed order under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act on 07.05.2005, followed by final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act on 04.06.2005, notification under Section 10(1) and declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act on dated 21.07.2004, notification under Section 10(5) on the ULC Act on 04.10.2005 and final order for taking possession of the land in question under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act on 11.01.2006.

¶92

As can be seen from the order dated 07.05.2005, passed by the Special Officer, under Section 8(1) and notice under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act, he has referred to the certificate dated 05.05.1981 obtained by the original pattedar, under Section 2(o) of the Act, for sale of the land, verification report of the enquiry officer dated 10.04.1987, inspection report of the Special Tahsildar dated 23.04.1988, enquiry report dated 29.04.1995 and another report of the enquiry officer dated 28.04.2005.

¶93

Based on the above documents/reports, the Special Officer, found that the original pattedar sold away an extent of Acs.20.00 in Sy. Nos. 124 and 125 situated at Gachibowli Village, in favour of the petitioner society vide registered document No. 4453/81, dated

¶94

24.07.1981, and that the petitioner society sold the property to its members in the year 1981, which is in violation of the provisions of the certificate under Section 2(o) of the Act.

¶95

Since the Special Officer, took note of the fact that the original pattedar had sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner society and the petitioner society sold the same as plots by allotting them to their members, and had the knowledge that the petitioner society and their members are in possession of the ULC Act, it may be noticed whether before issuing the draft statement dated 07.05.2005 under Section 8(1) along with notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, respondent No.2 was under an obligation to issue notice to the petitioner society and their members.

¶96

Rule 5(2)(a)(ii) of the ULC Rules provide that the draft statement prepared under Section 8(1) of the Act shall be served together with the notice under sub-section (3) of section 8, on all other persons so far as may be known, or are likely to have, any claim, or interest in the ownership, or possession, or both, of the vacant lands, by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned - (i) in the case of the holder of the vacant lands, to his address as given in the statement filed in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 6, and (ii) in the case of other person at their last known addresses.

¶97

The petitioner society, which purchased the land in question and their members who were allotted the plots and who are now in possession of their respective plots, admittedly being persons interested in the land, the Special Officer, as per the Rules was under an obligation, to issue notice to them. However, without issuing any such notice, as is required under Section 8(1) and 8(3) of the ULC Act, has issued final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act on 04.06.2005, which is subject to the provisions of Sections 6(2), 15, 18 and 38 of the ULC Act.

¶98

As the petitioner society and their members, are persons interested, and they being in possession of the land, were entitled to issuance of notice, and as the Special Officer, passed the orders dated 07.05.2005 under Section 8(1) and notice under Section 8(3) and final statement dated 04.06.2005 under Section 9 of the ULC Act, without issuing notice to them, they are liable to be set aside, for not following the provisions of Rule 5(2)(a)(ii) of the ULC Rules and also for violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶99

However, it is the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that after

¶100

completing the formalities, they have issued notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, on 20.06.2005, and got the same published in the A.P. Gazette on 24.06.2005 and that they issued the declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act on 21.07.2005 and published the same in the A.P. Gazette on 22.07.2005, vesting the surplus land in the Government, free from all encumbrances with effect from 06.08.2005. That thereafter, they issued notification under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act on 04.10.2005 and served the same on the original pattedar on 10.10.2005, calling upon her to surrender the land within thirty days from the date of its receipt and that as the original pattedar did not surrender the land within the stipulated time, they passed orders under Section 10(6) of the Act on 11.01.2006, authorizing the enquiry officer in the office of the Special Officer, to take over possession of the surplus land and handover the same to the M.R.O. on 30.01.2006.

¶101

As per the provisions of the ULC Act, after passing of final order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, the Special Officer, shall while preparing final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, alter the draft statement, and in doing so, he shall cause a copy of the final statement to be served, on the person concerned and where such vacant land is held under a lease, or a mortgage, or a hire-purchase agreement, or an irrevocable power of attorney. Thereupon, as required by Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, he shall cause a notification issued calling for the objections and under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, after considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as he deems fit, and then issue notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, declaring that the land excess vacant land referred to in the notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and vested in them absolutely free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.

¶102

Though respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that they have followed the procedure contemplated under the ULC Act and the Rules framed thereunder by serving notice on the original pattedar, the fact remains, the record produced by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, does not disclose any such notices having been issued to the petitioner society and their members, who are in possession of the land in question. Section 10(5) of the ULC Act provides that where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3), the

¶103

competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be 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. Admittedly, the record produced by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 discloses that notice dated 04.10.2005, under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was served only on the original pattedar, calling upon her to surrender surplus land within 30 days. Even though, the said provision clearly states that it has to be served on the person who is in possession of the land calling upon them to surrender the surplus land, the fact remains, respondent No.2 in spite of being aware that the petitioner society and their members are in possession of the land in question, did not serve any notice on them.

¶104

Any order passed by an authority, affecting the rights of an individual, in violation of the principles of natural justice, are null and void. The law in this regard is well settled.

¶105

The apex Court in Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujara t^[4] , while observing that an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is a nullity, held as follows:

¶106

“…….an order which is void may be directly and collaterally challenged in legal proceedings. An order is null and void, if the statute clothing the administrative tribunal with power, conditions it with the obligation to hear, expressly or by implication. Beyond doubt, an order which infringes a fundamental freedom passed in violation of the audi alteram partem rule is a nullity. When a competent Court holds such official act or order invalid, or sets it aside, it operates from nativity i.e., the impugned act or order was never valid.”

¶107

The Supreme Court in Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co., v. Union of India^[5] , held as follows:

¶108

It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons.

¶109

The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice, which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law.

¶110

A Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh

¶111

v. Chief Election Commr .^[6] , held as follows:

¶112

When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain

¶113

grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought about.

¶114

This Court in Tahera Yousuf Kadri’s case, considered as to what would be the effect of non-issuance of notices under the ULC Act, to the persons interested in the land, in the light of the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in M/s. L.S. & Co. v. State^[7] , wherein the learned Judge, having considered the said question in the light of the scheme of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, held as follows:

¶115

The Scheme of the Act contemplates issuance of notice and hearing of objections of the persons furnishing the statements and all other interested persons. The Act gives such a protection to all the concerned at every stage of the proceedings. After all, any decision of the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the provisions of the said Act are fraught with serious consequences in respect of the urban property. Rights in immovable properties cannot be allowed to be adjudicated by the quasi judicial authorities like the Special Officer and Competent Authority in a casual and perfunctory manner. The scheme of the Act and particularly Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder would show that the procedure to be adopted by the Special Office and Competent Authority is to be reasonable and fair. The scheme of the Act ensures an elaborate hearing by the Special Officer and Competent Authority in adjudication by the statements filed by the persons holding the vacant land. Any deviation in this regard would have to be viewed very seriously. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the whole decision making process in the instant case is totally vitiated. The 2^nd respondent was under the statutory obligation to issue and serve notices upon the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner herein before disposing of the statements filed by the 4^th respondent. Non-issuance of notice and its service upon interested persons is fatal.

¶116

In the case on hand, though respondent Nos. 1 and 2 produced the record to show that notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was served and possession of the land was taken by passing an order under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, the fact remains, a perusal of the record would prove otherwise. In fact, the petitioner society through one of their members sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the declaration filed by the declarant, and responding to such request, respondent No.5 on 27.08.2007, supplied copies of the file, numbering pages 1 to 18, and a perusal of same would disclose that the file was processed up to the stage of draft

¶117

notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, and it was put up for approval on 04.10.2005. Even though respondent No. 2 contends that the file was further processed and order under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act was passed on 11.01.2006 and possession of the land taken on 30.01.2006, the fact that remains is, if really order under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, was passed on 11.01.2006 and possession of the land in question was taken on 30.01.2006, and if really the said orders were available in the record, nothing prevented respondent No.2 from furnishing copies of the same also to the applicant when he was furnished copies of the record numbering pages 1 to 18 to the on 27.08.2007. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed detailed counters in the writ petition on 16.06.2010 and 04.06.2010, but there is no whisper made by them in the counters with respect to passing of order dated 11.01.2006 under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act and taking over possession of the surplus land on 30.01.2006. If really, the above orders were available in the file, respondent No. 2 would certainly have furnished the same to the applicant, who sought information under the Right to Information Act, and in fact, would have adverted to them in the counter. But, for the reasons best known to him, as noted above, respondent No.2, did not furnish them to the applicant and on the other hand, furnished the record numbering pages 1 to 18 only. Further, the additional file, which is appended to the original record, is not in continuity, but they are added as additional sheets, to the original file. However, respondent No.2 sought to justify the same contending that the original file was sent to the Government for considering the applications made by the members of the petitioner society for regularisation, and therefore, they have opened a separate file, containing additional sheets, and that as the original file contained only pages numbering 1 to 18, they furnished only that record to the applicant. This stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 does not appeal to the Court. If really, the original file was sent to the Government, for considering the applications of the members of the petitioner society, for regularization of their plots, nothing prevented respondent No.2 from informing the same to applicant who sought information under the Right to Information Act, that the copies of the record which they are furnishing, does not constitute the entire file, but constitutes only a part of it. In fact, respondent No. 2 sought to give this explanation for the first time to this Court, even though he filed counter on 04.06.2010, i.e. much

¶118

after passing the alleged order under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act on 11.01.2006 and taking over possession of the surplus land on 30.01.2006. Though respondent No.2 has taken this stand, the fact remains, as noted supra, when one of the members of the petitioner society made application under the Right to Information Act, seeking copies of the file relating to ULC proceedings in question, respondent No.2 furnished copies of the file relating to the ULC proceedings in question, numbering 1 to 18 only. This makes it clear that when respondent No.2 furnished the information to the applicant under the Right to Information Act, the file relating to the ULC proceedings in question, contained only page Nos. 1 to 18, while the extra pages which respondent No.2 now sought to produce, to justify their action of taking over possession of the land allegedly from the original pattedar, were not available and, in fact, not in existence in the file. Be that as it may, even assuming that the extra pages were available in a separate file, as on the date when respondent No.2 furnished information to one of the members of the petitioner society on his request under the Right to Information Act, yet respondent No.2 cannot be said to have taken possession of the surplus land validly, for the reason that a perusal of the record produced by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, inclusive of the appended extra pages, shows that notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, was issued only to the original pattedar and not to the petitioner society and their members, who admittedly, are in possession of the surplus land, and in fact, only draft under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, was put up for approval, as is evident from the extra pages appended to the file.

¶119

Hence, it is held that the petitioner society and their members, who were in possession of the land and persons interested therein, were entitled to issuance of notices under the provisions of the ULC Act, and taking over possession of the land, without notices to them, violates the principles of natural justice, and as such, the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, affecting the rights of the petitioner society and their members in the land in question, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. In re question No. 5:

¶120

The ULC Act was enacted to prevent concentration of urban property in the hands of a few persons and to bring about socialization of urban land in urban agglomeration and to secure orderly urbanization. However, considering the public opinion that the ULC

¶121

Act, failed to achieve what was expected of it, and having regard to the fact that instead of bringing in socialization of urban land, has pushed up land prices to unconscionable levels, practically bringing the housing industry to a stop, which provided opportunity for large-scale corruption, the Government, with a view to revive the stagnant housing industry and provide affordable living accommodation for those who are in a state of under served want and are entitled to public assistance, decided to repeal, and accordingly enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. This Repeal Act was made applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 28.04.2008. Pursuant thereto, the Government issued instructions in Circular Memo dated 24.04.2008 detailing the cases which stand saved and which stand abated by virtue of the Repeal Act. Hence, it may be noticed whether the petitioner society and their members are entitled to claim the benefit of Section 4 of the ULC Act.

¶122

The apex Court in Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P., Shanti Bhardwaj v. State of U.P., Ghasitey Lal Sahu v. Competent Authority and Mukarram Ali Khan v. State of U.P., having regard to the provisions of Section 4 of the Repealed Act, held that where possession of the land has not been taken, and possession of the vacant land still continues to be in possession of the surplus land owners, by virtue of the interim orders passed by the Courts, then the ULC proceedings stand abated.

¶123

Even though respondent Nos. 1 and 2 allege that the proceedings reached the stage of Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, and possession of the surplus land was already taken, the fact remains, this Court on issue No.4, recorded a finding that notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued only to the original pattedar and not to the petitioner society and their members who are in possession of the surplus land, and as such, the alleged taking over possession of the land from the petitioner society and their members without issuing notice to them, violated the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, affecting the rights of the petitioner society and their members in the land in question, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. In view of this finding recorded by this Court, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to have taken possession of the land from the petitioner society and their members validly, and as such, the petitioner society and their members still continue to be in possession of the land. This apart, this

¶124

Court, by order dated 14.09.2007, while admitting the writ petition, passed interim orders, staying all further proceedings pursuant to the orders passed by the Special Officer, in proceedings No. H1/1344/76, dated 04.06.2005 and the orders of the Government, dated 07.09.2007, except the plots in possession of 110 members who have applied for regularization in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 455 Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 29.07.2002, by paying compensation. Hence, having regard to the findings recorded by this Court, as noted above, and having regard to the interim orders passed by this Court at the time of admitting the writ petition, the petitioner society and their members continued to be in possession of the land in question, and that being so, and having regard to the provisions of Section 4 of the Repealed Act and Cause (c) of the Circular Memo dated 24.04.2008, issued by the Government pursuant to the Repealed Act, which states that all pending cases in different stages i.e., under Section 8(1), 8(4) and notifications under Section 10(1), 10(3) and notice under 10(5) shall abate, I am of the considered opinion that the ULC proceedings in relation to the land in question, which are subject-matter of these writ petitions, stand abated and are liable to be set aside, and accordingly issue No.5 is answered.

¶125

As the writ petition is filed by the petitioner society to protect its interest as also that of its members who purchased the plots from them, there is no necessity to implead FCI Colony Plot Owners Welfare Association, whose members purchased the plots from the petitioner society, and more so in view of the stand taken by this Court, as considered and noted above. Therefore, the petition in W.P.M.P. No. 27877 of 2007, filed by FCI Colony Plot Owners Association, praying the Court to implead them as party-respondent in the writ petition is rejected. However, since it is the case of FCI Colony Plot Owners Association that their members have paid amounts for getting their plots regularized, having regard to the stand taken by this Court, if they intend to recover the amounts, if any, paid by them to the Government for regularization of their plots, they are at liberty to work out their remedies in appropriate proceedings.

¶126

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated 07.09.2007 passed by respondent No.1, confirming the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 04.06.2005, cannot be sustained, and they are accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶127

________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶128

Dated: April, 2011 KSR

¶129

[1] 2000 (4) ALT 694= 2000 (4) ALD 596

¶130