Allowed

K. Malla Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Nov 2013WP/886/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court set aside revised orders declaring land as surplus under the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The authority lacked power to reopen proceedings previously closed following the Atia Mohammadi Begum judgment, as the subsequent Wellsphere reversal in N. Audikesava Reddy did not confer blanket power to revive closed cases. The writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned revised final orders are set aside; the Writ Petition is allowed. A connected writ petition awarded as infructuous.

K. Malla Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.886 of 2012

¶2

Date : 13-11-2013

¶3

Between: K. Malla Reddy and others .. Petitioners And

¶4

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶5

Counsel for petitioners : Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare proceedings No.B/3536/1976 dated 23-5-2007 of respondent No.3 whereby he has passed revised final orders under Sections 8(4) and 9 of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act") in respect of 50,681.95 sq. mtrs. as surplus land in Sy.Nos.30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 45 of Roshan-dowla village and Sy.Nos.55, 144/(Part) and 145/(Part) of Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

It is not in dispute that following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of

¶10

Uttar Pradesh^[1] wherein it was held that if on the date of commencement of the Act, lands were not included in the Master Plan, the same cannot be subsequently included by extension of the Master Plan to new areas, respondent No.3 has issued proceedings No.D/3536/96, dated 3-11-1995 holding that the declarants did not hold any vacant land at the commencement of the Act and hence the proceedings were closed. However, after the view taken in Atia

¶11

Mohammadi Begum (1-supra) was reversed by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Audikesava Reddy^[2] , respondent No.3 has passed revised proceedings which are impugned in this Writ Petition. In my opinion, respondent No.3 has no power or authority to reopen the proceedings which were already closed following the law that was in force at the time of closing the proceedings. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that respondent No.3 has not even made a reference to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Audikesava Reddy (2-supra). However, on the facts of the case, it is implicit that the only reason for respondent No.3 in reopening the proceedings is the change of law declared by the Supreme Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum (1-supra) as reflected in N. Audikesavareddy (2supra). The lands in respect of which the proceedings were closed in the present case are not the subject matter before the Supreme Court in N. Audikesava Reddy (2-supra) nor while reversing the view taken in Atia Mohammadi Begum, the Supreme Court in N. Audikesava Reddy (2-supra) has given blanket power to the authorities in the country under the provisions of the Act to reopen the proceedings which were already closed.

¶12

For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned

¶13

order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly setaside. The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶14

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMP No.1224/2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶16

Date : 13-11-2013 AM

¶17

[1] (1993) 2 SCC 546