The Single Judges failed to record the service of the necessary notice under Section 10(5) and order under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Without such service, the entire proceedings stand abated.
No relief granted to the appellants. No order as to 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.
II
I I I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN ANO THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1975 OF 2017
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the LettersPatent preferred against the orderdated 18.07.2017 in WP No.26261 of 2008 on thefile of the High Court.
Between:
(R3 is impleaded asperCourt Orderdated14'10'2014 in WPMP No' 38198 of 2014) "'APPELLANTS/RESPoNDENTS
AND
l.A. NO:1 OF 2017(WAMP' NO: 38-€-OF 2017').-^. ^ PetitionunderSecltfrlEj-6F66ingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavitfiled ln support of the petition'the High Court may be pleasedto suspendthe operationof order of LearnedSingle Judgedated : 18-07-2017in W.P.No.26261of2008'pendlngdisposaloftheWritAppeal counselfor the Appellant: sRl ;ARSA AlLfIIINAGESWARARAo
GP FORASSIGNMENT
Counselfor Respondents: Ms' K' MAMATA CHOUDARYFOR Jir cHnr-uncul'IARANJAN
The Courtmadethe following: ORDER
CEUJJ HO 'BLE AND s
H
5of2o17 No.L97 T
MENT: Perthe Hon'bte theChiefJusliceUjjalBhllaon)
HeardMr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao' learned GovernmentPleader for Revenue(Assignment) appearlng for theappellantsand Ms' K Mamata Choudary'Iearned counselfor both the respondents'
2.This intra-courtappeal has been preferredby the State andits officials against the final orderof the iearned SingleJudgedated 18'07'2017allowingW'P'No'26261 al 2008filed by the respondentsas the writ petitioners'
1sa public limitedcomPany 3" ResPondentNo'1 incorPoratedunder the ComPaniesAct' 1956' Itis engagedin the business of manufactureand sale of cold r:olledsteelstripsandboxstrappings.Itistheownerand possessor of industria]land to an extent of Acs' 13'70 cents / .i,l,u,edat Survel' No 367/ 1 in Moulali' lndustrialArea' rlyderabacl. when notice dated25.08.2008was iSSUed by
2
i\
appellant No.2, the related writ petition came to be filerj questioning the legality arrd the validity of the said notice Appellants were arraved AS respondents in the i,l,rit petition. Appellants contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit and later on additional counter affidavit.
I
I
"The first petitioner is a public Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 a-nd engaged in manufacture and sale of Cold Rolled Steel Strips and Box Strappings. It is the absolute owner and possessor of industrial land of an extent of Ac.13.70 cents situated in Survey No.367/1 in Moulali, Industrial Area, Hyderabad. The said land was initially allotted by the Govemment in lgTO for fhs prrppesg of establishing the manufacturing unit under the Agreement, dated 13.04.1970. Subsequentl],, the Government through its nodal agenc-v, Andhra Pradesh lndustrial Inlrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC), executed a sale deed on Ol.l1,1974 under document No.2540 of lg74. Since the said land fell within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, the first petitioner su bmitted an application 03oe.Ie76 seekins exempti":,j::. f ;::::r:1':: ;: Urban l-an.l {Ceiiing and Regularion) Act. 1976 (.the Act,, for bre vit_t J The Go,,ernment is orders in G o Ms.No.67r, Revenue Department, 0",.0 ,"'"o conrerred under clause,., ":lr'.:"::::i, ;:::iliff; the Act exempting the lanr t admeasuring 4o'o0o square merers in survey No.367/ 1 the provisions of the Act A compound wall w-as "o.r",",'o d at the time of initiat purchase itsetf ancl ,". ;";";;r, )ner has been running the manufacturing unit.
/
?he first petitioner fik a statement under Section 6(t) under seclion ofthe Act "". ,n.e r,,,-;;:: ".:;;;;,ed -:::"ndent issued a draft sratemenr rh- ^ -. -'"'r5wltn a xotice under Section g(3.1 of for objections o ",.".lll .-. -.q,emenr, the1.,,-, second ,ri.o^i,!l_LnU While issuing the ,_..q,,1 considered t}e ear]ier
I
exemption granted in respect of 40,000 square meters and prepared a draft statement taking into consideration 15,039 square meters. The first petitioner filed a declaration under Section 21 of the Act and expressing its intention to utiliz€ the land of an extent of 14,039 square meters for construction of dwelling houses for the accommodation of weaker sections of the societv and the second respondent permitted the same by order, dared 19.02.19g2. Sjnce the first petitioner could nor construct the .lu.elling units, the orclers rvere cancellecl subsequently oD I2.Ol.1990. Ultimatel.,, rhe second respondent passed an order, on 22.11.1,990 under Section 8{4) of the Act determining an extent ol 14,039 square meters as excess land. Challenging the said order, the first petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner, Appeals, Urban Land Ceiling and the Appellare Authority b],its order, dated 27 .06.2002, dismissed the appeal confirming the orders of the second respondent. Even after dismissal of the appeal, no proceedings were taken in respect of the said land and the first petitioner continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of Ac.l3.ZO cents. However, the second respondent issued a notice on 2S.Og.2OOg calling upon the first petitioner to make an application for regularization of its possession over the land admeasuring 14,039 square meters on or before 30.08.2008. In those ctcumstances, the present writ petition was hled challenging the said notice as ultra ui.res the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 as adopted by the State of Andhra pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.603, dated 22.04.2008.'
, I
f
stated that notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued to respondent No.1 on 22.02.2007. An order under Section 10(6) of the Act rvas passed on 1 1.03.2008. Resumption of surplus land by the State was saved by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
B. At the initia-i stage, interim directions were issued by the learned Single Judge restraining the appellants from interfering with the possession arrd enjoyment of the subject land by the respondents. Writ petition came to be admitted on 29.O4.2OO9 with interim directions sought for being granted. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge is extracted as under:-
I
"Even as per the recordings made in the note f e, the date of service of notice under Section lO(S) and taking possession under Section 10(6) of the Act are not available. The respondents might have taken paper possession and recorded in the records. ln State of Ur 4 scc 28or u.,o o.i..,.,lt1lji.""r].,1'"1:l"u5:l: Collector and Competent Authority IULC) ((2014) l2 SCC 523J. the procedure u.ith regard to dispossession and the effect ol Repeal Act $.as considered. Now the law is well settled thar the notjcc rrncier Section tO(5) .rs t\ell as l0(6) of the Act should be set.red on thc persons $.ho are in possession as r,t,eil as rn the deciaration. There notice. on the other n".,'"no proof of serviceof such present Notice, dated 25.08.2008 was issued *ithd' ,ut application of mind, stating
(,
that the petitioner rs in illegal occupation of the land ancl the present notice was issued in a proforma. In the said notice, it was also observed that a major portion of the above land is under illegal occupation of the third parties rvho have constructed houses unauthorisedly over the said surplus land.
The case of the first petitioner is that he is continuing the manufacturing activity in the land originally purchased by it and there cannot be any illegal occupation by third parties when the land is covered by compound wall. It is a total non_ application of mind by the second respondent. In the absence of proof of sewice of notice under Section 1O(S) and 10(6) of the Act, and also in view of coming into force of Urban Land (Ceitng and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, all the proceedings against the petitioners stood abated and the impugned notice is set aside."
9 . Learned Government pleader has ta_ken us to the additiona-l counter alfidavit filed by the appellants in the writ proceedings. Paragraph 2 of the additional counter affidavit is extracred hereunder:-
I
"2. That I humbly submit that as sratecl jn the enrlier counter afhdavit, the petitioner Industry was determined as excess land holder to an extent of 14,039.00 Sq. Mtrs. vide final orders dated 22.11.1990 U/s.8(4) of the Act, out of Sy.No.367l 1, Mouiali village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in C.C.No.F2/3 742/76. The statutory notification U/s.10(1) was issued on 2101-1991, declaration U/s.10(3) was issued on O3-092002. Subsequently notice U/s.10(5) was issued to the declarants and on its non-compliance, orders U/s. 10(6)
( \ I! L
i \
was issued authorizing the Enquiry Officer to take over possession of the above determined surplus land and accordingly the Enquiry Officer has taken over possession on 12-03-2008 under cover of panchalama. The above discussed o{fice copies of the said statutory notices are not tagged in the file. The relevant remarks in the note file of the ceiling case lead to issue of the alleged references a-re reproduced hereunder to supplement the action taken in the case for proper appreciation."
I
--..--_.-..---
8
I t
Additional Collector aad Compet ent Authority (ULCI2, learned Single Judge held that it is settied law that notice under Section 10(5) of the Act as well as order under section 10(6) of the Act are required to be served on the persons who are in possession as well as named in the declaration. If there is non_service of notice, the entire proceedings shalr fail through and this is what has been held by the learned Single Judge.
'(2014) 12- SCc 523
J
Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO //TRUE COPY// JOINT REGISTRAR / ' (-' sEcTtdN oFFtcER
I
To,.: ',
Il$ffi!|j:rf,i.i",Revenue(Assisnment), Hish court ror the state or
On" Spare bopy ,r3
Y
l I I
\ ilIti ,i 'r I
HIGHCOURT
DATED:2110712022
1tr E STA
0o* "\.($.<br>:t
tr
!-l
O 2s lul
s PAi ,itt
JUDGMENT
WA.No.1975of 2017
DISMISSINGTHE WRIT APPEAL
re-t
%ntt--..-
{Y*
WITHOUTCOSTS
i
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned notice under Section 10(5) and order under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, were validly issued given the lack of proof of service.
Whether the High Court may interfere with the finding of no error or infirmity recorded by the learned Single Judge in the original writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari RamRelied on¶66
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram
Gajanan Kamlya Patil v. Additional CollectorRelied on¶66
Gajanan Kamlya Patil v. Additional Collector
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Telangana, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department
Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling
ITL/S Southern Steels Limited
R.K. Mittal
Ujjal Bhuyan
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
