Allowed

Sri Yadla Satish Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Dec 2023WP/2126/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed. The court held that a buyer of surplus land can pursue the vendor's pending regularization application under G.O.Ms.No.455 without new NOC, as the buyer steps into the vendor's shoes.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; respondents directed to process the vendor's regularization application and pass orders within four weeks without insisting on NOC.

Sri Yadla Satish Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2126 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Yadla Satish Kumar, S/o Sri Yadla Ramachandra^{Rao Aged - 48 years,Occ:} Software Engineer R/o H.No.13-A, Sri Rama P.S. Nagar,^{MasabTank,Hyderabad}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^{SecretaryMunicipal} Administration & Urban Development Secretariat,^Hyderabad

¶12

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by the^{Commissioner, Liberty} X Road, Hyderabad

¶13

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^{Rep. by the Zonal Commissioner,} . Serilingampally Zone,^{Ranga Reddy District}

¶14

The District Collector and Competent^{Authority (ULC Wing), Ranga Reddy} District, Collectors Office, Lakdi-ka-pool,^Hyderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution^{df lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to pass an order or direction particularly in the nature^{of writ of writ of} Mandamus, declaring the: a) action of^{the Respondentsin not regularisingand} allotting excess/surplus land admeasuring^{400 sq.yards bearing Plot No. 126 and} H.No.1-6512t51126, in Sy.Nos.34, 35/Part, 36/Part'^{37, 38 and 39 of} Guttalabegumpet Village, Serilingampally^{Mandal,Ranga Reddy District, in} pursuanc€ of Application No.F1l455l2'110105 dated 08/08/2005^{submitted by on€} of my Vendors, Kundurthi Satya Murthy,^{under G.O,Ms.No.455, Revenue(UC.l)} Department dated 2910712002; b) inaction^{of Respondents 2 and 3 in considering} the LRS application datd 19to312008^{submittedby the Petitionerand otherco-}

¶17

owners in respect of the aforesaid Plot and their further action in insisting on the Petitioner to produce No Objection Certificate from ULC Department in order to approve the said LRS application; and c) action of Respondents 2 and 3 in issuing Short Fall Letter daled 1311212022 insisting on the petitioner to produce No Objection Certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Department for the aforesaid Plot, in order to process the building application dated 07 t12t2022 submitted by the Petitioner for constructing a residential house in the said plot; as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, in violation of the principles of natural justice, in violation of the Fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under the constitution of lndia, and contrary to law and consequently, direct the Respondents to a) regularise and allot the aforesaid plot by processing the aforesaid application dated 08/08/2005 submitted by Kundurthi Satya Murthy and b) process and approve the aforesaid LRS application dated 19l03l2OOB as well as building application dated 0711212022 submitted in respect of the aforesaid plot, wlthout insisting on No Objection Certificate from Urban Land Ceiling Department.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the 3rd Respondent herein to consider for granting of building permission and sanction to the petitioner for his property bearing plot No.126, House No_16512151126, Sy.No.34, 35/Part, 36/Part, 37, 38 and 39, admeasuring 400 sq. yards, situated at Guttalabegumpet Village, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District without insisting the NOC from the ULC Department.

¶20

counser ror the Petition* 'rT[?J.iil'^tll,,ilflro* KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENTS

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

)

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶25

WRIT P ITION No.2126 ot 2023

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing and allotting excess/surplus land admeasuring 400 sq. yards in Plot No.126 and H.No.1-65/2/S/L26 in Sy.Nos.34, 3s/Part, 36/Part,37. 38 and 39 of Guttalabegumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to the Application No.Fll455/2t70l05 dated 08.08.2005 submitted by the vendor of the petitione[ namely, Kundurthl Satya Murthy, under G.O.Ms.No.455 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 29.07.2002; the inaction of the respondents No.2 and 3 in considering the LRS application of the petitioner dated 19.03.2008 in respect of the aforesaid plot and to declare the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in issuing shortfall letter dated 13.12.2002 insisting the petitioner him to produce NOC from the ULC authorities for processing the building application of th€ petitioner dated 07.12.2022 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that himself, Sri Bhavana Ramesh Babu and Gutta Narasimha Rao are the absolute owners of the subject property having purchased the same from previous owneq Kundurthi Satya Murthy and others under registered sale deed bearing document No,18787/2005 dated 30.11.2005. 1 /

¶29

¶30

The^{petitioner submitted application seekingbuildingpermission} VideFileNo.012906/GHMC/6315/SLP2|2022-BPdated06.l2.2o22. TherespondentNo.3Videletterdated13.|2,2022issuedshortfall letter and^{directedthe petitionerto get ULC clearancefrom the} competentauthority.Itisstatedthattheactionoftherespondent authorityininsistinguponULcclearancecertificateisunwarranted and a rbitra^rY.

¶31

It is^{stated that one Shri Ganapati and six others filed their} respective^{declarationsunderSection 6(1) of the Urban Land} (Ceiling &^{Regulation)Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act')'} in C.C.^{No. F1l2 97tl1976 and Batch,declaring the surpluslands held} by them^{inSy.Nos.33to39 ofGuttalabegumpetVillage'} Serilingampally^{Mandal, RangaReddy District' During the pendency} of the^{said batch of cases, Ravindra Cooperative HousingSociety} Limited^{(Registration No'TBC-247) purchasedland admeasuring} Ac.77.O7^{guntasin Sy.Nos'33, 34/P,351P,36,37,38and 39 of} Guftalabegumpet^{Village, SerilingampallyMandal, Ranga Reddy} District,fromtheoriginalownersthroughregisteredSaleDeeds dated 22.71.1979^{bearing Document Nos'6950,6951, 6952, and} 6953 of^{Lg7g, dated 23.11.1979bearing DocumentNo'6957 of} 1g7g, dated^{26.11.L979 bearing Document No'7047of 1979, dated} 27.tl.lg7g bearing^{Document Nos.7053,7054 and 7055 of 1979}

¶32

¶33

¶34

and dated 28.11.7979 bearing^{Document Nos.7078, 7079,7089,} 7090 and 709L of 1979.

¶35

It is stated that, thereaften the^{society soldall of the plotsin} the said layout to various third^parties and Plot^No.126 admeasuring 4OO sq. yards. in the said^{layout, was purchasedby} one Kundurthi Anjaneyulu under^{registeredSale Deed dated} 28.01.1980 bearing Document No.689^{of 1980.After the death of} Kundurthi Anjaneyulu, the aforesaid^{batch of Urban LandCeiling} cases were decided on 17.02.2005^{declaring Sri Ganapatiand six} others as surplus land holders to the extent^of197819.65 sq. meters (48.88 Acres). Thus, most^of the^{plots in the aforesaid} layout made by Ravindra Cooperative^{HousingSociety Limitedwere} declared as surplus lands under the^{aforesaid order dated} 17.O2.2OO5 passed by the competent authority^{under the Act.}

¶36

It is stated that on coming to^{know of the aforesaid order} dated 17.02.2005, Kundurthi Satya^{Murthy,who is the son of late} Kundurthi Anjaneyulu, submitted application^{No.Ftl455/2lLO/05} dated 08.08.2005 for allotting surplus^{land in Plot No.126under} G.0.Ms.No.455 Revenue (UC.1) Department^{dated 29.07.2002by} paying requisite charges. It is stated that along with Kundurthi Satya Murthy several other plot owners^{submittedsimilar} applications to the respondent No.4 for regularisation of surplus

¶37

¶38

lands purchased by them. In total, about^{528 applications were filed} under G.0.Ms.No.455 dated^{29.O7.2OO2for regularisation of plotsin} Sy.Nos.33 to 39 of Guttalabegumpet^{Village. Out of the said528} applications, 517 applications were approved^{and 517 plots in the} aforesaid survey numbers^{were regularisedand allottedto the} occupiers of the said^plots. About 11^{applications werenot} approved including the application of Kundurthi^{Satya Murthy.}

¶39

It is stated that Kundurthi Satya Murthy^and his^family members actively^pursued their application for^{regularisation.} Howevec before disposal of the said application,^{theysold the Plot} No.126 to the^petitioner and two others under^{registeredsale deed} dated 30.11.2005 bearing document No.18787 of 2005.^In the^sale deed it was clearly mentioned that Kundurthi^{Satya Murthy and} others have already submitted regularization application.^After purchase of the aforesaid property, the petitioner submitted representations to the respondent authorities to^process the aforesaid application submitted by Kundurthi Satya Murthy. However, the respondent authorities did not consider the said application. As such, the^petitioner was constrained to file^the instant writ petition.

¶40

In the counter filed by the respondent No.4 it^is stated that the petitioner did not file any application under G.O.Ms.No.455.

¶41

-qry

¶42

¶43

The petitioner does not have any rEht or^{title to seek regularization} of land and for^grant of building^permission over^{the ceilingsurplus} land. As per the record, Kundurthi Satya Murthy, has^filed regularization application in terms of G.O.Ms.No.455^dated 29.07.2002. The land is vested in the Government^{under the} provisions of the ULC Act and after issuing Section 10(6) proceedings, possession was taken over under the cover^of panchanama dated L7.o3.2008, 08.02.2008 and 15.03.2008^i.e. well before the Repeal Act came into force.

¶44

Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy. learned senior counsel,^appearingfor the petitioner submitted that it^{was specificallystatedin the sale} deed of the^petitioner that^pursuant to^{noticedated 21.06.2005} issued by the Special Officer and Competent^{Authority, ULC,to the} vendor No.1 in^proceedings No.F1l2917176,^{lhe vendor No.1} submitted all documents^{as required underG.O.Ms.No.455dated} 29.07.2002 along with bankers^{cheque No.121137dated} 08.08.2005 for Rs.2O,064l- and^{requested the authoritiesto} regularize the subject^property. It^{is alsomentioned that the vendor} No.1 assured the^{purchasersthat he will hand over the required} permission and regularization^{proceedingsimmediatelyafter} obtaining from the^{ULC authorities.}

¶45

¶46

g. Learned senior^{counsel furthersubmittedthat' merely} becaUsethevendorofthepetitionershassoldtheproperty'pending consideration^{of regularizationapplication under G'O'Ms'No'455} dated 29.07.2002,^{a stand cannot be taken by the respondent}

¶47

aUthoritiesthatthepetitionerisnotentitledtogetthesUbjectplot regularized.^{G.O.Ms.No'455 does not bar the purchasers to pursue} regularization^{applicationof their vendors' There is no illegalityas} such in transferring^{the property pending regularization application'} In any case,^{the propertywas soldwith a cloud on titleand subject} to regularization^{applicationunderG.O'Ms'No'455'}

¶48

Learned^{GovernmentPleader for Assignmentsubmitted that} underG.o.Ms.No.455dated29.oT.2022regularizationapPlication cannot be^{considered unless itis evidenced by aregistered} document of^{purchasefrom the excessland holder or person} claiming through^{him as per Para 4(e) ofG'O'Ms'No'455'} The petitioner^{is not the applicant and purchase of the subject plot} by the Petitioner^{and otherspendingconsiderationofthe} regularization^{application wouldnot conveyany title, as suchthe} application of^{the petitioner cannot be considered'}

¶49

Learned Government^{Pleaderfurther submittedthat several} persons along with^{purchasers approachedthe Governmentand} ULC authorities and^{requested similarapplicationsto be considered'}

.-..1 . l:.}:.

The ULC Departrnent by^{Lr. No.F1l1449/2O16 dated09.07.2019} requested the Special Chief Secretary to Government,^Revenue (ULC) Department, to accord permission to regularize surplus plots/lands for which applications were filed and amount^paid. It was informed in the said letter that several^{applications werenot} processed due to various administrative reasons and^{third party} sales have been created. it^{was pointedout that (a) there are} transactions within the^{familymembers;(b) someof the applicants} sold the^plots to others and^{(c) some applicants having soldthe} plots are claiming refund of the amount and seeking^{withdrawal of} their appllcations. It was^recommended that^{casesfalling under} category (a) and^(b) can be^{easily disposedof. It is statedthat the} matter is^pending before the^{Government and itmay take} favourable decision.^{There are several similar applicationswherein} the applicants have transferred^{the plots even beforethe} regularization orders were^issued.

¶55

t2. In rejoinder, the^{learned seniorcounselfor the petitioners} submitted that there^{is no bar under the provisions of the ULCAct} or G.O.Ms.No.455 dated^{29.O7.2022 or anyother law for processing} the regularization^{application of the vendors,whohavesold the} property pending consideration^{of such application'}

i
ji

In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner, who has purchased the subject property along with others under registered sale deed dated 30.11.2005 bearing document No.18787/2005, .is^{entitledto pursuethe regularization applicationsubmitted by his} vendor. The contention of the learned Government pleader for Assignment that the purchase of property by the petitioner is illegal cannot be appreciated inasmuch as the issue in this writ petition is not regarding the validity of sale deed of the petitioner. This Court is only concerned with the processing of regularization application submitted by the vendor of the petitioner. Kundurthi Satya Murthy.

¶61

¶62

t4. As discussed above, the vendor of the petitioner assured that regularization application will be pursued. Thus, even if there is a . defect in title of the petitioner and the petitioner did not get valid title under sale deed dated 30.11.2005, if the regularization application is favourably considered, the defect in title, if any, would stand rectified and would enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner has stepped into the shoes of his vendon The application, which is being processed. is not submitted by the petitioner but submitted by his vendor, who has a sale deed directly executed through the decla rant/fa m ily members. Thus, the contention of the learned Government pleader for Assignment that para 4(e) of G.O.MS.No.4S5 dated 2g.O7.2022 is not satisfied is without any merit.

xfta*

t \

This Court also takes into consideration the^policy behind the regularization orders issued by the Government from time to time exempting surplus land from the provisions of the ULC Act. The Government, having taken into consideration that surplus lands have been sold to iflnocent parties, intended to ensure that there is no prolonged litlgation and plots purchased by individuals for their housing needs are regularized. By looking it from the angle of Government, it has to be seen that neither there is prejudice caused to the Government nor there is loss to the State exchequer. On the other hand, out of 528 applications submitted for regularization,5lT applications have been considered and only 11 applications have not been considered. Howeve[ reasons are not known.

¶68

In any event, the District Collecto[ Urban Land Ceiling, Ranga Reddy District, vide letter dated 09.07.2019 brought to the notice of the Government that several regularization applications are pending and requested approval from the Government. As there is no information forthcoming from the Government, even when such request was made by the District Collector^{in the} yeat 2019, the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Assignment to direct the Government to take a decision^pursuant to such request, in the opinion of this Court, would cause^{hardship to} the petitioner and does not fall for consideration in this case. It may

¶69

¶70

be pertinent to note that there is no embargo for the Government to process the application of the vendor of the petitioner as the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of his vendor. There is no illegality committed or violation of any of the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.O7.2022 including para 4(e) therein.

¶71

L7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to process the regularization application N}.FU455/2170/2005 dated 08.08.2005 submitted by Kundurthf Satya Murthy under G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.O7.2022 by giving notice to the petitioner and all interested/concerned persons and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶72

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶73

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶74

SD/. T.JAYASREE AssrsrANrFEGrSTRAR T/TRUE COPY'/ SEcTroY6FFrcER

¶75

To, 1. The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶76

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Liberty^X Road, Hyderabad

¶77

The Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Ranga Reddy Diskict

¶78

The District Collector and Competent Authority (ULC Wing), Ranga Reddy District, Collectors Office, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad

¶79

One CC to SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUCI

¶80

Two CCs to the GP FOR ASSIGNMENTS, Fhgh Court for the State Of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶81

Two CD Copies. BSK

(,, \4"

t4^+..

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211212023

CC TODAY

1 t{€ SYA r4:
t
J
o [ 1 FEB 2U2[
.()z.

D E F r'

¶88

ORDER

¶89

WP.No.2126 of 2023

¶90

ALLOVUING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶91

o
<br>

Sri Yadla Satish Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Yadla Satish Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dappu Radhika Vs The State of Telangana

Narla Ramchander Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Manuka Mallamma Vs The State of Telangana

Kunja Kannappa and 26 others Vs The State of Telangana and 11 others

Smt Kadakanchi Chinna Somakka Vs The State of Telangana

Alle Shankar Vs The State of Telangana