Allowed

Smt. G. Sudha Chandra alias P.Jaya Sudha v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC19 Feb 2024WP/2138/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-regularization of surplus land and refusal to process building permission without ULC clearance. Court held purchaser can pursue vendor's regularization application. Petition allowed processing directed within 4 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed to process regularization application submitted by vendor within four weeks.

Smt. G. Sudha Chandra alias P.Jaya Sudha Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ I

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2138 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. G. Sudha Chandra alias P.Jaya Sudha, W/o Sri G Poorna Chandra Rao, Aged - 50 years, Occ . Housewife, R/o H.No 6-3-596i63/4, Flat No.10'1, Sri Sai Enclave, Naveen Nagar, Klrairtabad, Hyderabad

¶10

,.PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary lv4unicipal Administration and Urban Development Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by the Commissioner, Liberty X Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 Greater Hyderabad fi/unicipal Corporation, Rep. by the Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone, Ranga Reddy District

¶15

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

¶16

RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circun)stances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to pass an order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the:

¶18

a)action oF the Respondents in not regularising and allotting excess/surplus^land admeasuring 500 sq.yards bearing Plot No-324, bearing H.No^1-65121324in Sy Nos.33, 34lPatl, 35/Part, 36/Part, 37, 38 and 39 of Guttalabegumpet^Village, Serilrngampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in^pursuance of^Application No.F1145511411/05 dated 15.06.2005 submitted by the Vendor of the^Petitioner, Gutlapalli Ravindranath, under G.O.Ivls. No.455, Revenue^(UC l)^Department dated 29.07 2002;

¶19

b) action of the 4th Respondent in issuing l,4emo No.F/l9/2021 daled^Ni|.O2.2021 refusing to process the aforesaid application daled 12.O1 .2021;

¶20

c) inaction of Respondents 2 and 3 in considering the LRS applicatlon dated 21.O7.2009 submitted by Gullapalli Ravrndranathⁱⁿ respect of the aforesaid^Plot and their further action in insisting on^production of No Objection Certificate from ULC Department in order to approve the said LRS application; and

¶21

d) action of Respondents 2 a d 3 in issuing Short Fall Letter dated 15.12.2022 insisting the Petitioner to produce No Oblection Certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Department for the aforesaid Plot, in order to^process the building application dated 08.'12.2022 submitted by the Petitioner for constructing a residential house in the said Plot,

¶22

as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, in violation ot the^principles of natural^{justice, in} violation of the Fundamental and Constrtutional 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 15 06.2005 subn.lrtted by Gullapalli Ravindranath and (b) process and approve the aforesaid LRS application rialed 21.07.2009 as well as building application dated 08.12.2022 submitted in respect of the aforesaid Plot, without insisting on No Objectron Certificate from Urban Land Ceiling Department and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and interests of justice'.

¶23

Prayer is amended as per C.O. dt.04107120?3 in l.A.No.2 ot 2023. (Neat copy filed by the Counsel)

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent herein to consrder for granting of building^permission and sanction to the petitioner for his property bearing Plot No.324, House No.1-65121324, Sy.No. 33, 34lPart, 3slPart, 36/Part, 37, 38 and 39, admeasuring 500 sq. yards or 418 sq. rneters, sltuated at Ravindra Cooperative Housing

¶26

: i :

¶27

Society Ltd-, Guttalabegumpet Village, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District without insisting the NOC from the ULC Department during the^pendency of Writ Petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED,^{SC FOR GHMC} Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

I ,

¶32

HONOURABI-E SITI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRI'l' PtITITION No.2138 OF 2023

¶33

ORDEII: (ORAL)

¶34

Lcar.ucd counscl lor- thc pctitioner subrnits that subject

¶35

mattcr of this rvrit pctition is sqr-rarely covered by the order dated 22.12.2023 passcd by this Court in W.P. No.2l26 of 2023, ar.rd the sarne is not clisputcd by thc lcrrncd Assistant Governtneut Pleaders appcaling tbr the rcspo nrlcnts

¶36

Thcrclbrc, r-ccorclins atoresaicl subrnissions bf the learned counscl,^(bllrrwing tlrc ortlcr tltrted 22.12-2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No l l2(r ol' 1021. iu ter-rns thereof, this writ petition is allorvecl. The responrlcnts are dircctcd to process the regularization application No.l--li-l-i-s/l-1 1l/05 dated 15.06.2005 submitted by Mr. Ciuttapa[[i l{avindranath under G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2{)0). by siving noticc to the petitioner and alt inte restedr conccLncd pcrsor.rs and pass orders, in accordance with law. rvithirr a period ot'lbur^(4)r.vccks lrom the date of receipt of a c<rpy cr['tlris crrclcr. r\ copr.' ol'thc ordcr dated 22.12.2023 passed by this Court rn W.[).No-f I]6 of'2023 shall be annexed to this ordcr No ortlcr-irs to cosls

¶37

¶38

Asa sc.luel thercto, niiscellancous^{applications.ifany,}

¶39

pcnding in this rvrit pctitiorl shall^{stand closed}

¶40

//TRUE COPY/i

¶41

sDlc.PRAVEEN KU/kAR ASSISTANT REG1STRAR sECfloN 4r,".*

¶42

To,

¶43

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶44

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad [t/unicipal Corporation, Liberty X Road, Hyderabad

¶45

The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lrlunicipal Corporation, Serilingampally Zone, Ranga Reddy District

¶46

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

¶47

One CC to SRI ttri.KARTHIK PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

One CC to SRI t,4 A K [,4UKHEED, SC FOR GHtvlC IOPUC]

¶49

Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADIMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶50

Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNI\4ENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶51

Two CD Copies

¶52

(Along with the copy of order dated 22.12.2023, in W.P.No.2126 of 2023)

BSR q- BS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1910212024

ORDER

WP.No.2138 of 2023

\ irE. STAT € c? ,.<br>q
j:!
o ? B FtB ?iiri (. ri
*
la3 pa,-1 i,: ,

¶59

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

c"{'t}
@
,.,r

¶62

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VI'AYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2126 of 2O23

¶63

¶64

The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respo dents in not regularizing and allotting excess/surplus^land ad me suring 400 sq. yards in Plot No.126 and H.No.1-65/2/5/126 in Sy. os.34, 35/Part, 36/Part, 37. 38 and 39 of Guttalabegumpet Villag , Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,^pursuant to the A plication No.Fl/455/2110/05 dated 08.08.2005 submitted by the vdndor I of the^petitioner, namely, Kundurthi Satya Murthy, under G.O.Ms.No.455 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 29.O7.2OO2; the inaction of the respondents No.2 and 3 in considering the^LRS applrcation 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 t3.12.2OO2 insisting^{the petitioner} him to produce NOC from the ULC authorities for^processing the building application of the^petitioner dated 07.12.2022 as^arbitrary, rllegal and in violation of principles of natural^justice.

¶65

It is the case of the petitioner that himsell Sri Bhavana Ramesh Babu and Gutta Narasimha Rao are the absolute owners of the subject property having^purchased the same^fromprevious ownet Kundurthi Satya Murthy and others under^{registered sale} deed bearing document No.18787/2005 dated 30.11.2005.

¶66

¶67

I il i' lr /l I I I

¶68

The petitioner submitted application seeking building permission vide File No.012906/ GHMC/631s/S Lp2/2022_Bp dated 06.72.2022. The respondent No.3 vide ietter dated B.L2.2[2|issued short fall letter and directed the petitioner to get ULC clearance from the competent authority. It is stated that the action of the respondent authority in insisting upon ULC ciearance '-- cevL r (Irtif r cate Ldre _ 's^unwarranted and arbitrary.

¶69

It is stated that one Shri Ganapati and six others filed their respective declarations under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, tg76 (for short ,the Act,), in C.C.No.F1l2 97 L/ tg7(: and Batch, declaring the surplus lands held by them in Sy.Nos.33 to 39 oF cuttatabegumpet Village, Seriling6 rnp6f f y Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. During the pendency of the said batch of cases, Ravindra Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Registration No.TBC -247) purchased land admeasuring 4c.77.07 guntas in Sy.Nos.33, 34/p, 3S/p, 36, 3t,38 and 39 of Guttalabegumpet Village tut"'ngampairy Mandar, Ranga Reddy District. from the or,r,nr' dated 22.11. lszs ouu. nl :ffi:[::;::'.;:: :t,:::: 6953 of L979, dated 23.t''"'n bearing Document No.6957 of 1979. dated 26.77.7g7g0, ut'n' Document No'7o47 of 1979' dated 27 '7r.rg7g bearing oo.rn rent Nos.7053, 7054 and 7055 of 1979

¶70

¶71

¶72

"". lated 28.11.1979 bearing Document Nos.7078, 7079, 7089, 70e0 Irnd 7091 of 1979. It is stated that, thereafteL the society sold all of the^{plots in}

¶73

:"1 ;aid layout to various third parties and Plot No.126 rsuring 400 sq. yards, in the said layout, was^purchased by

¶74

::t"l(undurthi Anjaneyulu under registered Sale Deed dated 1980 bearing Document No.689 of 1980. After the death of

¶75

::"fl rthi Anjaneyulu, the aforesaid batch of Urban Land Ceiling cases I were decided on 17.02.2005 declaring Sri Ganapati and six *^"rli as surplus land holders to the extent of 197819.65 bters (48.88 Acres). Thus, most of the^plots in the aforesaid

¶76

.i",l made by Ravindra Cooperative Housing Society Limited were declal pd as surplus lands under the^aforesaid order^dated

¶77

t7.o2112005^{passed by the competentauthorityunderthe Act.} 5.1llt^{is statedthat on comingto know of the aforesaid order} I

¶78

datedlItl.oz.zooS, I^{Kundurthi SatyaMurthy, who is the son of late} rundf Ilrthi^{nnianeyulu, submitted application No.FIla55/2L10/05} dated 08.08.2005 for allotting surplus land in Plot No.126 under G.O.M .No.455 Revenue^(UC.1) Department dated 29.O7.2OO2 by payin( requisite charges. It is stated that along with Kundurthi Satya Murthy several other plot owners submitted similar applic tions to the respondent No.4 for regularisation of surplus

¶79

¶80

lands purchased by them. In total. about 528 applications were filed under G.0.Ms.No.455 dated 29.O7.2OO2 for regularisation of plots in Sy.Nos.33 to 39 of Guttalabegumpet Village. Out of the said 528 applications, 517 applications were approved and 517 plots in the aforesaid survey numbers were regularised and allotted to the occupiers of the said plots. About 11 applications were not approved including the application of Kundurthi Satya Murthy.

¶81

It is stated that Kundurthi Satya Murthy and his family members actively pursued their application for regularisation. Howeve[ before disposal of the said application, they sold the PIot No.126 to the petitioner and two others under registered sald 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. Howeve4 the respondent authorities did not consider the said application. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file the instant writ petition.

¶82

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.45S.

¶83

¶84

The petitioner does not have any right or title to seek regularization of land I and for grant of building permission over the ceiling surplus land. I As per the record, Kundurthi Satya Murthy, has filed ,."nr,l rization application in terms of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 2s.o7l2002. The land is vested in the Government under the ons of the ULC Act and after issuing Section 10(6)

¶85

,-r,l orocelt.ings, possession was taken over under the cover of nama dated 17.03.2008, 08.02.2008 and 15.03.2008 i.e.

¶86

:l'lpfore the Repeal Act came into force 8l Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for ,h" elbtitioner submitted that it was specifically stated in the sale Df the petitioner that pursuant to notice dated 21.06.2005

¶87

:::: by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, to the r No.1 in proceedings No.F1l2917/76, the vendor No.1

¶88

::::l[ted all documents as required under G.O. Ms.No.455 dated 29.O?l 12002^{along with bankers cheque No.121137dated} I

¶89

08.081 12005^{for Rs.20,064/-and requested the authorities to}

¶90

."ou,Jlrize tfre^{subiect property.} It^{is also mentioned that the vendor} I ]lssured^{the purchasersthat he will hand over the required}

¶91

^;, permrlIlsion and regularization proceedings immediately after obtaidLlinq^{from the ULC authorities.}

¶92

¶93

Learned senior counsel further submitted that, erely because the vendor of the petitioners has sold the property p d ing consideration oF regularization application under G.O.Ms.N 455 dated 29.07.2002, a stand cannot be taken by the respo dent authorities that the petitioner is not entitled to get the subje plot regularized. G.O.Ms.No.455 does not bar the purchasers to p rSUC regularization application of their vendors. There is no illegal ty as such in transferring the property pending regularization appli tion. In any case, the property was sold with a cloud on title and s bject to regularization application under G.O.Ms.No.455. 10. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment submitte tha t under G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.O7.2022 regularization appli ation cannot be considered unless it is evidenced by a regi tered document of purchase from the excess land holder or rson claiming through him as per Para 4(e) of G.O.Ms.N .455. The petitioner is not the applicant and purchase of the subj plot by the petitioner and others pending consideration o the regularization application would not convey any title, as su the application of the petitioner cannot be considered.

¶94

Learned Government Pleader further submitted that s veral persons along with purchasers approached the Governmen and ULC authorities and requested similar applications to be consi ered.

¶95

¶96

The jI LC Department by Lr.No.F1l1449/2O16^{dated09.07.2019} requ"lted the Special Chief Secretary to Government,^Revenue (uLC)] Department, to accord permission to^{regularizesurplus} plots/lands for which applications^{were filed and amountpaid'} It *uJ ,nro rmed in the said letter that several^{applications werenot} pro.uJr"o due to various administrative^{reasons and thirdparty} sales have been created. It was^{pointed out that (a) thereare} trans ions within the family members;^{(b) someof the applicants} sold e plots to others and^(c) some^{applicants having sold the} plots re claimlng refund of the amount and^{seeking withdrawalof} their pplications. It was recommended that cases^{falling under} categ ry (a) and (b) can be easily disposed^{of. It is stated that the} matte is pending before the- Government^{and itmay take} favou able decision. There are several^{similarapplicationswherein} the pplicants have transferred the^plots even^beforethe regul rization orders were issued. t2. In rejoinder, the learned senior^{counselfor the petitioners} submi ed that there is no bar under^{the provisions of the ULCAct} or G. .Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2022^{or anY other law for processing} the gularization application of the vendors,^{who have sold the} prope y pending consideration of such application.

¶97

¶98

In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner, wh has purchased the subject property along with others under regi tered sale deed dated 30.11.2005 bearing document No.18787/ 005, is entitled to pursue the regularization application submitted y his vendor. The contention of the learned Government Plead r for Assignment that the purchase of property by the petitioner is llegal cannot be appreciated inasmuch as the issue in this writ peti on ts not regarding the validity of sale deed of the petitioner. This ourt is only concerned with the processing of regularization appli tion submitted by the vendor of the petitionet Kundurthi Satya Mu hy.

¶99

As discussed above. the vendor of the petitioner assur that regularization application will be pursued. Thus, even if the isa defect in title of the petitioner and the petitioner did not ge valid title under sale deed dated 30.11.2005, if the regulari ation application is favourably considered, the defect in title, if any, ould stand rectified and would enure to the benefit of the peti oner. The petitioner has stepped into the shoes of his v ndor. The application, which is being processed, is not submitted the petitioner but submitted by his vendor; who has a sale deed d ectly executed through the declarant/family members. Thus the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Assignmen th at para 4(e) of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.O7.2022 is not satis ed is without any merit

¶100

¶101

¶102

This Court also takes into^{considerationthe policy behindthe} regularization orders issued by the Government^{from time to time} exempting surplus land from the^{provisions of the ULCAct.} The Government, having taken into consideration^{that surplus lands} have been sold to innocent^{parties, intendedto ensurethat thereis} no pr,olonged litigatlon and^{plots purchasedby individualsfor their} housi.ng needs are regularized. By^{lookingit from the angleof} Government, : it has to be seen that^{neither there is prejudice} caused to the Government nor there^{is loss to the Stateexchequer.} On the other hand, oiit of 528^{applicationssubmittedfor} regularization,5lT applications^{have been consideredand only11} appliiations have not been considered.^{However, reasonsare not} known.

¶103

In any event, the District Collector,^{Urban Land Ceiling,} nangal Reddy District, vide letter dated^{09.07.2019broughtto the} notice:of the Government that several^{regularizationapplications} are^'p-ending and requested^{approvalfrom the Government'} As there is no information^{forthcomingfrom the Government,} even when such request was^{made by the DistrictCollector in the} year ?019, the submission of the learned Government^Pleaderfor Assignment to direct the Government^{to take a decisionpursuantto} suchlrequest, in the opinion of^{this Court, woutd cause hardshipto} ] the petitioner and does not fall for^{consideration in this case. It may}

l i I I II

I l I

I I

be^{pertinent to note that there is no embargofor the Government} to process the application^{of the vendorof the petitioner as the} petitioner has stepped into the^{shoes of his vendor' There is no} illegality committed or^{violatlon of any of the conditions of} G.O.Ms.No.455 dated^{29.07.2022 including para 4(e) therein'}

¶109

L7. In view of the^{above,the wrlt petition isallowed'} The respondents are^{directed toprocess the regularization} application No.Fl/455/2t10l2005^{dated 08.08.2005 submittedby} Kundurthi Satya^Murthy under G.o.Ms. No.455^{dated 29.o).2022} by giving notice to^the petitioner and all interested/concerned persons and pass orders, in accordance^{wlth law, within a period of} four (4) weeks from^{the date of recerptof a copyof this orderl}

¶110

The miscellaneous^{petitions pending, ifany, shall istand}

¶111

closed. There shall be^{no orderas to costs.}

¶112

B. VIJAYSEN REDDY,^J

¶113

December 22, 2023 DSK

¶114

Smt. G. Sudha Chandra alias P.Jaya Sudha v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G. Sudha Chandra alias P.Jaya Sudha v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

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

Gabbeta Rajender Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Manchikatla Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd.Zaheeruddin Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. P. Nageshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Wajida Tabassum @ Ruksar Vs The State of Telangana

Pullakandam Satyanarayana Murthy Vs The State of Telangana