Dismissed

T. Ramanaiah v. The Special Chief Secretary to Government Revenue (Uc.Ii)

Telangana HC16 Feb 2021WA/32/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court of Telangana examined the legality of regularization orders issued under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Court held that the appellants had no vested rights to challenge the proceedings as their specific performance decree had been set aside by a civil court. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed without costs.

T. Ramanaiah Vs The Special Chief Secretary to… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HiMA KOHLI AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT APPEAL No. 32 OF 2021

¶7

Writ Appeal Under Clause^'15 of the Letters Patent appeal preferred the against the order dated: 2111212020 in WP. No. 2313612005 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

T. Ramanaiah, S/o. T. Venkaiah, Age 53 years, Govt. Service, R/o. H. No. 8-3-976/1 15, Shalivahana Nagar Colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad

¶10

M. Srinivasa Chary, S/o. Alwaraiah Pandit Rep. by its GPA Holder, T. Ramanaiah S/o. T Venkaiah, Age 53 years, Occ: Govt Service, Fi/o. H. No. 8-3-976/1 15, Shalivahana Nagar Colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad

¶11

...Appellants/ Writ Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

The Special Chief Secretary to Government Revenue (UC.ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

The Special Officer Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad

¶15

It//s. Bhagyalakshmi Cooperative Housing Society, Hyd TAB 76 Rep. by^its Presidenf Sri K. Koteswar Rao, R/o. 278lC, Sachivalayanagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad

¶16

Mandava Ravi, S/o. Late [Vl Ramakoteswara Rao, Occ: Business^Rl/o.Plot No.589, Arora Colony Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶17

Smt Sarojini, W/o. Late M. Rama Koteswara^Rao, Occ:Housewife^{Fl/o. Plot} No.589, Arora Colony Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶18

6, Smt. Uma Sundari, D/o. Late M Rama^{KoteshwaraRao,Occ: Housewife,} R/o. Plot No.589, Arora Colony, Road^No.'13, Banjara^{Hills, Hyderabad}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under section 151 cPc^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High court may be pleasedto suspend the} operation of impugned Order bearing^{GOMS.NO.1636 Revenue (UC.ll)Department} dated 09/09/2005, in the interest of^justice and^pass

¶22

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI M.A.K. MUKHEED

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2:, GP FOR^REVENUE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI R. SURENDRANATH

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6: SMT. K. HEMALATHA

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

IUDGMENT:^{(Per Hon'bleSri lustice B VijaysenReddy)}

¶29

Aggrieved^{by the order'dated 21'12'2020'passed by a learned} Single^{Judge in WP'No'23136of 2005'wherebytheir writ petitionwas} dismissed,theappellantshaveapproachedthiscourt.

¶30

The^{parties are hereinafter referredto as they were arrayed} 2, before^{the learned Single ludge'}

¶31

Many^{of the facts are not in disputeHence' only the relevant} facts^{for the purpose of disposalof this appeal are being referred to} hereunder: .^{(a) Originally' one Mandava Ramakoteswara Rao (father of the}

¶32

respondents^{No'4 and 6 and husbandof respondentNo'5)' Adusumilli} Ramachandra^{Rao andKancharlaAppa Rao had jointlypurchasedan} extent^{ofAc.4.zz guntasin sy.No.41of yeilareddyguda village'} Hyderabad^{District vide registered sale deed No'2221of 1966dated} 23.09.1966.^{They had arso jointrypurchasedanother extent of 3'350} sq.^{yards (92814 sq' meters) in Sy'No'42 of Yellareddyguda Village'} Hyderabad^{District videregistered sale deed No'1214of 1966dated} 13.09'1966'^{It appears there was a divisionof the property among the} three^{owners by metes and bounds wherebY 9234 sq' meters was} allotted^{to Mandava RamakoteswaraRao; 7OO8 sq' meterswas} allotted^{to Adusumilli RamachandraRao and 4985 sq' meterswas} allotted^{to Kancharla Appa Rao'Mandava RamakoteswaraRaoand} Adusumilli^{Ramachandra Rao filed declarationsbefore the Special} Officer^{and Competent Authority'Urban Land Ceiling' Hyderabad viz'} tt15538176^{andEULO33tl76and Kancharla Appa Rao filed}

¶33

declaration^{beforethe Special Offlcer and CompetentAuthority'Urban} Land^{Ceiling' Vijayawadain File No'84/2396176'}

¶34

¶35

(b) After due enquiry, Mandava Ramakoteswara Rao was determined as surplus land holder to an extent of g254.12 sq. meters in Sy.No.41 of Yellareddyguda village and allowed to retain an extent of 938 sq. meters in Sy.No.42 and 62 sq. meters in Sy.No.41 of Yellareddyguda Village vide C.C,No.E1l5538/76; Kancharla Appa Rao was determined as surplus land holder to an extent of 39g4.g6 sq. meters in Sy.No.41 and allowed to retain an extent of 1OO0 sq. meters in Sy.No.41 (938 sq. meter.s) and Sy.No.42 (62 sq. meters) of Yellareddyguda viflage and K. Ramachandra Rao was determined as surplus land holder to an extent of 7031.32 sq. meters in Sy,No.41 (5008.29 sq. meters) ofyeilareddyguda and in Sy.No.129180 (2023.34 sq. meters) in Shaikpet vi[age and alowed to retain an extent of 2oo0 sq. meters in Sy.No.42 (938 sq. meters) and Sy.No.41 (1062 sq. meters) of Yellareddyguda village.

¶36

(c) Three independent appeals were filed against the aforesaid orders viz. Appeal No.Hyd/83/96 dated 26.05.2000; Appeal No.Hyd/92/96 dated 26.05.2000 and Appeat No,Hyd/82/96 dated 26,05.2000, challenging the surplus determination. The appellate authority disposed of the said appeals by remanding the matters back to the Special Officer and Competent Authority for a tresh enquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and other interested persons and Bhagyalakshmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited (for short 'the society,), After a de novo enquiry, Section B(4) orders were passed on 07.09.2004 determining Mandava Ramakoteswara Rao, died per LR,s, as surplus land holder to an extent of 5881,63 sq. meters in Sy.Nos.41 and 42 of yellareddyguda Village, Hyderabad District and holding that they are entitled for 1000 sq. meters each under Section 4(1Xb) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Orders under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the

¶37

¶38

Act were^passed on^{21.12.2006and 19'02'2007respectivelyby the} Special Officer and^{Competent Authority Later, the LR's of Mandava} Ramakoteswara^{Rao filed applicationsfor regularizationof surplusland} under G.O.Ms.No.456^{dated29'07.2002. The Governmentissued} orders for regularization^{of surplus land in favour of the applicantsvide} G.O.Ms.No.1636^{Revenue (UC.Ii)Departmentdated 09 09'2009as}

¶39

u nder:

¶40

sr. No	File No	Nameofthe aPPlicant	Extent ,mtrs
, 1	E1./456lto2l04	Sri.M.RaviS/o.^{M, Ram Koteswararao}	1960.54
2	Etl456ltoa/04	Sri.lvl.Umarani^{W/o.v Satyanarayana}	1960. 54
3	Etl456l70t/O4	Smt.M.Sarojini^{S/o.M.RamKoteswararao}	1960.54

¶41

¶42

It has to be noted that^{a statement was given by the declarants} andtheirGPA,Y.BalaKotaiah,on3l.0l.lggTthattheentiredeclared land is vacant and^{non-ag ricultura I in nature. Out of the total area of} 22022 sg.^yards in^{Sy.Nos.41and 42 of YellareddygudaVillage,} an extent of 500 sq.^{yards was acquired by the SpecialDeputy} Collector, Land^{Acquisition (General)for Manjeera Reservoir and} compensationwaspaid.Fortheremainingvacantland,thedeclarants entered into agreement^{of sale with the Societyby receivinga sumof} Rs.20,0OO/- in cash^{and they handedover physical possessionto them} on 22.tL.1g75.^{They also obtainedpermissionfrom the Government} under the Act for^{an extent of 3350 sq' yards in Sy'No'42of} Yellareddyguda Village^{vide G.O.Rt.No'240dated 20'01'1976'} to transfer^{the land to the Society'Meanwhile, the ULC Act came into} force and they^{could not execute the sale deedin favour of the society'} In spite of such^{claimby the Society, no benefit was given to it and} entire^parcel of^{land of 8296 sq meters(Sy'No'a1) and 938 sq'} meters^{(Sy.No.42)of Yellareddyguda Village was computedto the} holding of the^{declarants in the orderspassed under section 8(4) of}

¶43

the ULC Act dated 07.08.2OO4 in proceedings No.E/5538/76 passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad.

¶44

It is claimed that the father of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 purchased an extent of 650 sq. yards (which is part of exempted surplus land of 5881.63 sq. meters vide G.O.Ms.No.1636 dated 09.09.2005) by entering into an agreement of sale with the Society on 22.06,7981, by paying Rs.25,000/- towards the sale consideration. It is further claimed by the petitioners that physical possession was handed over to them with specific boundaries and they constructed a compound wall and a small room in the said premises. Since the Society did not come forward to execute the sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 22.06.t981, the petitioners flled a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.4862 of 1991. The Society contested the said suit by filing a written statement. Trial was conducted and the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 12.11.1999 subject to compliance of the provisions of the ULC Act. Aggrieved thereby, the Society filed A.S.No.299 of 7997 challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1999 before the V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was dismissed.

¶45

Later, the petitioners filed Ep.No.314 of 2000 and the same was dismissed on 13.10.2003 on the ground that they have not complied with the provisions of the ULC Act. Subsequenuy, the petitioners filed E.P.No.28 of 2005 and the Court executed the sale deed on behalf of the Society in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 07.03.2005. Thereafter, the society flled an application in EA.No.55g of 2OO5 praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 07.03,2005. In spite of the Executing Court directing registration of sale deed dated 24.03.2005, the same was kept pending registration by the

¶46

¶47

Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills vide document P.No.1B7 of 2005. As such, the petitioners filed WP.No.788 of 2005 for issuing directions to the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed dated 24.03.2005. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar to register the document in accordance with law. It is stated in para 8 of the affidavit that the sale deed has been kept pending registration by the Sub-Registrar for want of requisite stamp duty and registration fee.

¶48

Subsequently, respondents No.4 to 6 filed a suit in O.S.No.205 of 2005, for cancellation of the decree of specific performance in O.S.No.4862 of 1991 dated 12.11.1999 and the sale deed dated 24.03.2005, executed in favour of the petitioners vide pending document No.187 of 2004 before the Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills. The said suit was finally decreed vide judgment dated 01.12.2008. It is a matter of record that the petitioners have challenged the said judgment in CCCA.No.283 of 2008, which is pending before the High Court.

¶49

The contention of the petitioners is that they are in physical possession of the subject land and before issuing the impugned proceedings dated 07.08.2004 in respect of 5881.63 sq, meters, the competent authority should have given opportunity of hearing to them. it is further stated that the impugned proceedings were issued by the respondent No.3 in collusion with the respondents No.4 to 6, only to defeat the claim of the^petitioners in respect of 650 sq.^yards of land held by them under agreement of sale dated 22.06,1981.

¶50

It is not in dispute that the decree of specific^performance in O.S.No.4862 of 1991 and^pending sale deed dated 23.04.2005 in favour of the petitiohbrs, were set aside in O.S.No.205^oF 2005^filedby the respondents No.4 to 6.

¶51

¶52

Mr. M,A.K. 14ukheed, learned counsel for the^petitioners, vehemently submitted that the impugned proceedings could not have been issued without notice to the petitioners since they are in actual and physical possession of the land. By virtue of the judgments of this Court in G,V. MOHAN v, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH1; ASHRAFUL MADARIS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH2; RAJ KUMAR SUR^ANA v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH3; P. LAXMI KANTHA RAO v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH4, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the regularization order passed under the impugned G.O., is illegal. Possession is an important aspect which could not have been ignored by the authorities and also by the learned Sing le Judge.

¶53

There is nothing pointed out from the record by the learned counsel for the petitioners to demonstrate that the petitioners are in actual physical possession of the subject land. The agreement of sale, if any, executed by the Society and the decree passed in O.S.No.4862 of 1991, binds the Society. The possessory rights, if any, claimed by the petitioners would only bind the Society and not the respondents No,4 to 6, who are third parties. In any case, the decree for specific performance and pending sale deed in favour of the petitioners have been set aside in O.S.No.205 of 2005. In CCCAMP.No.879 of 2008 in CCCA.No.283 of 2008 (flled by the petitioners challenging the decree dated 01.12.20018 in O.S.No,205 of 2005), retief was sought to restrain the respondents No.4 to 6 herein from alienating the suit schedule property and status quo orders were passed on 24.12.2008. It is clear from the record that cancellation of the decree of specific

¶54

'uo 1t;eLot6t

¶55

' 20 r4 (2) ALD 87

¶56

' 20 r4 (2) ALD 125 ' 20 r5 (3) ALD 248

¶57

¶58

performance and the pending saie deed^{is still continuingto operatein} favour of the^{petitioners and there are no interim orders' Thus,the} petitioners do not have any vested right to^{challengethe impugned} reg u la rization/exe m^{ptionproceebingsissued infavour ofthe} respondents No.4 to 6.

¶59

L2. The decisions, referred^{to abovein para 10, relied upon by the} learned counsel for the appellants^{deal with cases relatingto dispute} with regard to taking over^{actual and physicalpossessionunder} Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the^{ULC Act. But the dlsputein the} present case is totally different. In the instant^{appeal,the dispute} raised is by third^{parties,who claim to be in possessionof the subject} land i.e. 650 sq.^{yards. The principalground on which the specific} performance decree was set aside vide^{judgment dated 01.12.2008in} O.S.No.205 of 2005 was that the^{Society was not the title holder and it} did not have the right to^{executeany agreementin favour of the} defendants^{(petitioners herein); the judgmentand decree obtained by} the defendants through^{the Court againstthe Society is not valid and} binding on the^{plaintiffs(respondentsNo.4 to 6).}

¶60

Thus, viewing^{the case from any angle,this Court does not find} any infirmity in the^{impugnedjudgment passed by the learnedSingle} Judge. There are^{no merits in the writ appeal and it is liableto be} dismissed. Accordingly,^{it is, hereby,dismissed'}

¶61

The miscella neous Petitions, pending if anY, shall stand^closed There shall be^{no orderas to costs.} SD/.C.V.MA^LLIKARJ UNA V A DEPUTY REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTI FFICER

¶62

To,

¶63

One CC to^{Sri. M.A.K'tvlukheed'Advocate[OPUC]} 2. One C.C.^{to Sri. R. Surendranath' Advocate[OPUC]} ,). One C.C.^{to Smt. K Hemalatha' Advocate[OPUC]} 4. Two CCs^{to GP for Revenue'HighCourt for the State of Telangana} IOUT] 5. Two^{C.D. CoPies}

, J DAt

HIGH^COURT

DATED'.1610212021

ORDER

WA.No.32^{of 2021}