The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging orders under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, noting that the Government had withdrawn the claim for specific allotment while keeping other orders open for challenge in pending proceedings.
Writ petition disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
[32e61
HIGH COURT FOR THESTATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTYFOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEC.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO:10781OF 2008
Between:
All are R/o. H,No.2-2-64,Amberpet, Hyderabad.
...'ETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated inthe affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order/smore particularlyone in the natureof writ of Mandamus declaring theorderdt. 2o-7-2007 in Proc.No. J2113413and 13414176 to the extent ofUpholding G.O.Ms. No. 506, Rev dt. 26-8-2002 and consequently declare G.O.Ms.No.506, Rev. Dl 26-8-2002 as null and viodand direct the 3rd respondent to deliverpossession of Plot No.250, in Sy'No 67' T'S'No 35' Block A, Ward'167, TeegalgudaVillage,Saidabad Mandal to the petitioners herein'
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(WPMP. N O: 14071 OF 2008)
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 4th respondent not to proceed further with the construction in plot No. 250, in Sy.No.67, T.S No. 35, Block A, Ward 167, Teegalguda Village, Saidabad l,4andal, pending disposal of the WP.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WVMP. NO: 1526 OF 2008
Between:
Smt.,lndira Mohan Reddy, Wo. Late Mohan Reddy, aged 47 years, Rl/o. Flat No 305, sowdhamini Apartments, Chaitnayapur, Hyderabad fresenfly residing at Kalyani Steel Palace, Choutuppal village and mandal, Nalgonda district.
...PETITION ER/4th RESPONDENT AND
Repondents 1 to 6 are R/o. H.No.2-2-64, Amberpet, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
(R'1'l not necessary party)
...RES'.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS
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 vacate the interim stay granted in W.P.No.10781l2O0B datec, 14.05.200g
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B.CHANDRASEN REDDY, SENTOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VIVEK JAIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: --
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETI?ION NO.10781 OF 2OO8
ORDER:
This writ l)c tition is filed b1, the petitionerspraying this Court to declare thc ordcr, daLed 20.O7.2O07 in proceedings No.J2/ 13413 & 13414176 Lo the extent of upholding G.O.Ms.No.506, Rev. dated 26-08-2002 as rllegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for other appropriate lclicfs.
I
2
i a I i I I!
CVBR,J wP_10781 2008
section 8(4) of the Act, confirming the orders and draft notice issuecl under Sections 10(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 24.10.1999 and consequently, a notification, dated 3i.10.1999 was issued. Subsequently, notice under Section 10(S) of the Act was issued against the dead declarant Late p.Nandaiah, who is allegecl to have expired on 04.O4.19g4.
CVBR,J wP 10781 2008
J
\ I
::i:iit -i. ):
that during thc subsistence of thc status quo orclers, theAct has been repealecl and thcrcforc, in the absence of taklngpossession, the ordcrs passed under Seclion 10(5) ol the Act is not validand such propertics arc not vested in the State. Learned Senior Counsel further contendcd that so far as the relief sought in thiswrit petrtion, quesl,ioning the allotment of the land made in favour of respondent No.4 to an extent of 250 square yardsvide G.O.Ms.No.SOtr dalcd 26.O8.2OO2 is not pressing.
CVBR,J wP 10781 2008
7 With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of
There shall be no order as to costs
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
f
. SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
S CTION OFFICER
To
1 The Secretary to revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 2 The Commissioner of Appeals ( ULC), Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad The S_p-ecial Offlce! gnd Competent Authority, Urban Lanai Ceiling, hyderbad 4 One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRI O.IVANOHER REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 6 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for tie Stat6 of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]
7 Two CD Copies PSK. GJP
l I t I Il i I I i
l l a
HIGH COURT
DATED:2711112024
ORDER
WP.No.10781 of 2008
1{'i ,:! .,ri€
oe
J*
D 2 5 r,*.. ?[l5
t-.) {
t
r,.ri\ i.O
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
,/0 /9 ./. 4- /' 6 /3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings issued against a dead person under the Urban Land Ceiling Act are valid.
Whether notices issued during the pendency of an appeal with status quo are sustainable.
Whether the land was correctly declared surplus and validly acquired by the State.
8 provisions across 3 enactments
Gvaneshwar Goud
P.Dhanunlaya Goud
P.Swaroopa
P.Kirunaxar Goud
P.Amaravathi Goud
Smt. Indira Mohan Reddy
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
