The Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a High Court Single Judge order that barred the petitioners from questioning a 1982 Urban Land Ceiling authority order, holding the matter had attained finality and the petitioners suppressed material facts.
Written appeal dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1111 OF 2012
DATED:7.9.2012
Between: Smt. Munchipilli Bangaramma and others … Appellants And District Collector, Visakhapatnam and others … Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1111 OF 2012
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.25.7.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P. No.14921 of 2010.
The appellants – writ petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the order dt.26.7.1982 passed by the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam, under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’). Said order was passed by the Special Officer on an objection petition filed by one Kotni Sanyasi against draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act relating to determination of surplus extent of land held by him.
The case of the appellants – petitioners was that the land admeasuring Ac.1.52 cents in Sy. No.117/3 of Nathayyapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, was purchased by the petitioners’ father by a sale deed dt.22.2.1955. However, Kotni Sanyasi, who has no title to the land, filed the declaration in the matter. The Hon’ble Single Judge in the impugned order dt.25.7.2012 observing that the order challenged in the writ petition was passed on 26.7.1982 under Section 8(4) of the Act, and neither the person who filed the declaration nor the authority who passed the order is made as parties to the writ petition and that the said order was passed about three decades ago, dismissed the writ petition.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dt.25.7.2012, the appellants - writ petitioners filed this appeal.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioners stated that their father had purchased the land in question in the year 1955 and after his death, they being legal heirs have succeeded to the property. However, it is admitted in the affidavit that they were never in possession of the property. It is stated that recently with the help of one of the employees of the revenue department, they could able to trace out the property and later approached respondent No.1 and obtained certified copies of the relevant revenue records. But, no particulars were given as to when they came to know about the property and wherefrom. The main case of the writ petitioners is that Kotni Sanyasi is not the owner of the land in question and he has no right to file the declaration in the matter. Hence, questioning the order dt.26.7.1982 passed by the Special Officer and the Competent Authority, the writ petitioners approached this Court.
Learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal contended that fraud was played against the petitioners and on that ground he tried to make out a different case before us, than what was urged before the Hon’ble Single Judge. But, no particulars relating to the alleged fraud were given in the affidavit, and such a ground was never urged before the Hon’ble Single Judge. After considering the writ affidavit and the impugned order, we are of the opinion that such a contention, at this stage, cannot be entertained nor appreciated without filing proper material before this Court by the appellants - petitioners.
On the contrary, it appears to us that though the order challenged in the writ petition was passed on 26.7.1982, the petitioners did not take any steps in the matter immediately thereafter, and they filed the writ petition in the year 2010. It is not in dispute that the said order was passed on 26.7.1982 when the father of the petitioners was alive, and he expired on 13.4.1989. In view of the fact that the father of the writ petitioners was holding more than the land he
could have held as per the provisions of the Act at that point of time, it was his statutory duty to file a declaration before the authority concerned. But, no such particulars were given by the appellants – writ petitioners.
Further, it is to be noted that in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, by respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, it is stated that one G.V. Satyanarayana and others had filed W.P. No.9943 of 2000 before this Court against the Collector, Visakhapatnam, and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka, alleging that the petitioners therein had purchased plots from Sri Kotni Sanyasi under registered sale deeds and questioning the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners therein from the house sites situated in Sy. No.117/3 of Nathayyapalem. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 20.9.2007 due to non-filing of affidavit and non-production of other material by the petitioners therein, observing that the proceedings initiated in the matter under the Act had become final and the surplus land stood vested in the Government.
Therefore, at this stage, there is no reason for the writ petitioners to question order passed in 1982, which has attained finality. In our opinion, the Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly assessed the facts of the case as well as law on the subject, and dismissed the writ petition. We find no illegality or irregularity in the order so passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, on the given facts, and on the contrary it appears to us that the writ petitioners tried to suppress the material facts from the Court, kept under the sleeves and did not even disclose the same.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 7.9.2012 bnr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal can be entertained when the challenged order had attained finality after three decades without filing invalidation petitions promptly.
Whether the writ petitioners suppressed material facts regarding statutory duty to declare surplus land.
Whether the Hon'ble Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No.9943 of 2000Referred¶17
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Munchipilli Bangaramma and others
District Collector, Visakhapatnam and others
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
