Dismissed

Y.Narasimha Reddy, v. The Vice Chairman and M.D.

Telangana HC2 Aug 2012WP/3625/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the vesting and auction of surplus vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, a two-judge bench dismissed the petition. The court held that the writ was barred by inordinate delay and that paragrass cultivation does not constitute agriculture under the Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed in limine and on merits on grounds of delay and suppression of facts.

Y.Narasimha Reddy, Vs The Vice Chairman and M.D. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.3625 OF 2004

¶3

DATED:2.8.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Y. Narasimha Reddy and others … Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.3625 OF 2004

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer.

¶12

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring (A) the action of 1^st and 2^nd respondents putting the lands in Sy. No.359 to an extent of 4,856.22 sq. mtrs., in Sy. No.381 to an extent of 7,081.96 sq. mtrs. in Sy. No.400 to an extent of 3,338.61 sq. mtrs. situated at Uppal Bagath, for auction on 29.2.2004, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and (B) declare the Proceedings No.F2/301/82/9157/76, dated 10.3.1993, and Proceedings No.F2/301/82/9157/76, dated 3.3.1999, as illegal and notification Gazette issued under Section 10(1) dated 6.5.1993 and Notification under Section 10(3) dated 14.8.1998 and Notification under Section 10(5) dated 30.10.1993 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the U.L.C. Act and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in Sy. No.359, 381 and 400 situated at Uppal Bagath.”

¶13

The facts in brief, as pleaded in the petition, are that petitioners are brothers. They are owners of land – an extent of 4,856.22 sq. mts. in Sy. No.359; 7,081.96 sq. mts. in Sy. No.381; 3,338.61 sq. mts. in Sy. No.400, situated at Uppal Bagath. The said properties were earlier held by their father Sri Yella Reddy. The properties, along with the land in Sy. No.702 which was sold always long back, are joint family properties of petitioners and their father. Their father, representing the joint family, filed a declaration under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’). The above said lands are being used for the purpose of paragrass cultivation. In addition to the said lands, the petitioners also own three houses, being H. Nos.9-48, 9-40 and 9-39 in Uppal Village.

¶14

It is stated that respondent No.3 having considered the declaration filed by father of the petitioners, passed an order under Section 8(4) of the Act on 10.3.1993 rejecting the contention of the joint family. The Special Officer and

¶15

the Competent Authority, without taking into the nature of use of the lands described in the master plan and without considering the description of the master plan, treated the entire lands as vacant lands. He has also not given benefit as per statute with regard to the additional appurtenant land for the three houses held by the petitioners. According to them, they are entitled to 3,000 sq. mts., additional appurtenant land as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mira Gupta v. State of A.P .^[1] . Since the lands are being used for paragrass cultivation, it is not covered by the provisions of the Act. Without considering the various provisions of the Act, including Section 4(1) of the Act, the authorities came to a wrong conclusion and passed the order on 10.3.1993. Subsequently, notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 3.6.1993 and notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued on 14.8.1998 by the authorities. It is tried to be contended that the petitioners did not receive any notice. Respondent No.1 issued a notification in the newspapers on 9.2.2004 that the lands in Sy. No.359 to an extent of 4,856.22 sq. mts.; in Sy. No.381 to an extent of 7,081.96 sq. mts.; in Sy. No.400 to an extent of 3,338.61 sq. mts. situated at Uppal Bagath, are being put to auction on 29.2.2004.

¶16

According to the writ petitioners, the lands acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Act, cannot be put to auction. They approached the urban land ceiling authorities by filing a representation stating that they are taking steps to comply with G.O. Ms. No.455 dt.29.7.2002 and requested to allot the land. Under these circumstances, the prayer, as extracted above, was made before the Court, and further prayed to stay the auction of the lands mentioned therein.

¶17

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 wherein it was stated as under:

¶18

“Sri Y. Yellaiah (alias) Y. Yellareddy filed statements in Form-I u/s 6(1) of the Act in the year 1976 which was assigned as CC. No.9157/76 and another declaration in the year 1982 and the same was assigned as CC. No.301/82. The declaration filed in the year relates family whereas the declaration filed in the year 1982 was in the capacity of individual. The details are as under:

¶19

Sl. No.	Name of Declarant	CC. No.	Description of the property	Locality	Extent
			Land with building, Sy. No.722	Uppal	429.00 Sq. Yards
			Land with building, Pre. No.9-48	Do	56.00 Sq. Yards
1	Yamjala Yella Reddy	9157/76	Land with building, Pre No.9-39	Do	30.00 Sq. Yards
			Cattle shed	Do	95.00 Sq. Yards
			Agricultural land Sy. No.702	Do	3176.00 Sq. Yards
2	Yamjal Yella Reddy	301/82	Sy. No.702	Do	Ac.3.00

¶20

The declarations were clubbed together as the same were filed by the individual and were got enquired and after due verification the declarant Sri Ylla Reddy was treated as holder as under:

¶21

Sl. No.	Nature of the property	Village/ Ward/ Locality/ Sy.No.	Total area	Plinth Area	Appt. land	Area Protected	Vacant
1	Land with building	Pre. No.9-39 Uppal	280.00	280.00	0	280.00
2	Do	Pre. No.9-48, 9-40 Uppal	442.00	159.00	283.00	442.00
3	Do	1-11 Uppal	157.00	157.00	0	157.00
4	Do	1-88, Uppal	326.00	0	0	0	326.00
5	Vacant land	702, Uppal Khalsa	10724.34	0	0	0	10724.34

¶22

6	Do	359, Uppal	4856.96	0	0	0	4856.22
7	Do	381, Uppal	7081.96	0	0	0	7081.96
8	Do	400, Uppal	3338.61	0	0	0	3338.61
			27206.13	596.00	283.00	879.00	26327.13

¶23

The total land held by the declarant is 27206.13 Sq. Mtrs. He was allowed to retain an extent of 1000.00 Sq. Mtrs u/s 4(1)(b) of the Act and he was provisionally determined as surplus vacant landholder to an extent of 26,206.13 Sq. Mtrs.

¶24

Draft statement u/s 8(1) and notice u/s 8(3) of the Act were issued accordingly on 31.10.1988 calling for objections, if any, to be preferred within (30) days from the date of receipt of orders.

¶25

In response to the draft statement the declarant filed certain objections to the draft statement issued on 17.1.1989.

¶26

After giving several opportunities and heard the plea of the declarant as required u/s 8(4) of the Act, final order u/s 8(4) of the Act was issued on 10.3.1993 declaring the declarant holds the following properties.

¶27

Sl. No.	Nature of the property	Village/ Ward/ Locality/ Sy.No.	Total area	Plinth Area	Appt. land	Area Protected	Vacant
1	Land with building	Pre. No.9-39 Uppal	280.00	280.00	0	280.00
2	Do	Pre. No.9-48, 9-40 Uppal	442.00	159.00	283.00	442.00
3	Do	1-11 Uppal	157.00	157.00	0	157.00
4	Do	1-88, Uppal	326.00	0	0	0	326.00
5	Vacant land	702, Uppal Khalsa	10724.34	0	0	0	10724.34
6	Do	359/2, Uppal	2529.25	0	0	0	2529.25
7	Do	381, Uppal	7081.96	0	0	0	7081.96
8	Do	400, Uppal	3338.61	0	0	0	3338.61
			24879.16	596.00	283.00	879.00	24000.16

¶28

The total area held by the declarant is 24879.16 Sq. Mtrs out of which an extent of 879.00 Sq. Mtrs was excluded from computation being protected u/s 4(9) of the Act and out of total vacant land 24000.16 Sq. Mtrs., an extent of 1000.00 Sq. Mtrs was allowed to be retained u/s 4(1)(b) of the Act and he was finally determined as

¶29

surplus vacant land holder to an extent of 23000.16 Sq. Mtrs.

¶30

Final statement u/s 9 of the Act was prepared accordingly and sent for service which was got served on 3-4-93.”

¶31

It is further pointed out in the counter that final orders under Section 8(4) and notification under Section 10(1) were also issued and got published in the A.P. Gazette No.22 dt.3.6.1993. In this regard, no objections were received within the stipulated period from the interested persons nor any appeal was preferred. In these circumstances, declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued and published in A.P. Gazette No.33, dt.10.9.1998, stating that the land has been vested absolutely with the Government with effect from 29.9.1998. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 30.10.1998 asking the declarant to surrender the land and an order under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued on 31.10.1998 auththorizing the Enquiry Officer to take over the possession of surplus land and handover the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, on 19.6.1999, who in turn handed over the land to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in terms of G.O. Ms. No.166 Rev.(UC.I), dt.3.3.2001.

¶32

It is further stated that Sri Yellareddy filed a declaration on behalf of the family as well as in the capacity of individual in the year 1976 and 1982 and from the pahani copies, it is evident that for the property bearing Sy. Nos.359/2, 381 and 400 of Uppal Baghat, patta stands in the name of declarant Sri Y. Yellareddy, being purchaser. The writ petitioners failed to prove that the property was purchased with the joint family funds. Major sons of Yellareddy are living separately and since the property was purchased by the declarant Sri Y. Yellareddy, these lands are self-acquired property, in which the sons are not entitled to any share. Accordingly, a final order was passed under Section 8(4) of the Act determining that the declarant holds the following properties.

¶33

Sl. No.	Nature of the property	Village/ Ward/ Locality/ Sy.No.	Total area	Plinth Area	Appt. land	Addl. Appt. land	Area Protected	Vacant
1	Land with building	Pre. No.9-39 Uppal	280.00	280.00	0	0	280.00

¶34

2	Do	Pre. No.9-48, 9-40 Uppal	442.00	159.00	283.00	442.00
3	Do	1-11 Uppal	157.00	157.00	0	157.00
4	Do	1-88, Uppal	326.00	0	0	0	326.00
5	Vacant land	702, Uppal Khalsa	10724.34	0	0	0	10724.34
6	Do	359, Uppal	2529.25	0	0	0	2529.25
7	Do	381, Uppal	7081.96	0	0	0	7081.96
8	Do	400, Uppal	3338.61	0	0	0	3338.61
			24879.16	596.00	283.00	879.00	24000.16

¶35

Out of the total area of vacant land held by him 24000.16 Sq. Mtrs., he was allowed to retain an extent of 1000.00 Sq. Mtrs., u/s 4(1)(b) of the Act.”

¶36

Subsequently, a final statement under Section 9 of the Act was issued and the notice was duly served on the concerned persons on 3.4.1993. The petitioners or the declarant, in spite of having knowledge of such proceedings, did not file any appeal from the said order.

¶37

It is further stated as per Section 2(o) of the Act paragrass cultivation does not come under the definition of agriculture. The land was vested with the Government free from all encumbrances with effect from 29.9.1998. Possession of surplus land was already taken. Government has right to handover the land to HUDA for public purpose. Hence, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioners in this regard cannot be accepted at all. The steps taken by the respondents are well within the purview of the Act. Petitioners have not filed any appeal under Section 33 of the Act, before the appellate authority, and after lapse of eleven years they filed the writ petition which would show the mala fide intention of the petitioners to escape from the provisions of the Act. Hence, no order can be passed in the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.

¶38

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the material placed before me, it appears to me that the petitioners

¶39

did not take steps in the matter when the final orders were passed by respondent No.3 on 10.3.1993 and even after service of the orders, no appeal was preferred. It appears that after lapse of eleven years, the petitioners filed the writ petition in 2004 and since then, by efflux of time, eight years have passed. It also appears to me that paragrass cultivation will not come within the meaning of ‘agriculture’ as per Section 2(o) of the Act. Under these circumstances, I do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the respondent authorities. On the contrary, it appears that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in taking necessary steps in the matter by the petitioners. Further, they have suppressed the fact from the Court in saying that they have not received the notice in respect of the orders passed by respondent No.3 on 10.3.1993. It is nothing but suppression of material facts before the Court and on that ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

¶40

Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to pass any order in favour of the petitioners. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶41

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ 2.8.2012

¶42

bnr

¶43

[1] AIR 1992 SC 1567

Y.Narasimha Reddy, v. The Vice Chairman and M.D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Narasimha Reddy, v. The Vice Chairman and M.D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Hanumana Lakshmi Chowdary, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

C.Balavisalakshmi Vs Revenue(Lr)Dept Hyd and 2 Others

C.Amar Babu Hyd. Vs the Govt of A.P. Its Sec Rev Dept HYDAND2

O.v.R.Industrial Training Centre Vs The Director General of Employment and Training

L.Dastagiri Vs The Managing Director

Tunuguntla Susheela Devi, W/o.late Ramalingeswar Rao Vs The District Collector