Allowed

P. Dass Goud v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to

Telangana HC27 Nov 2024WP/8556/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 declaring petitioners surplus landholders. The court held de jure possession was taken without following Sections 10(5) and 10(6), during subsistence of status quo orders and after repeal; proceedings set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings No.J2/13413 and 13414 of 1976 dated 26.07.2007 issued by respondent No.3 were set aside; no costs.

P. Dass Goud Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8556 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Dass Goud, Sio. Late P.^{Nandaiah, aged 51 years, Occupation:Business,} Rl/o. H.No. 11-7-6, Pa\ala^{Anil Kumar Cblony, Ravidass Lane, Saroomagar,} Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

P. Dhanan.jaya Goud, S/o. Late^{P. Nandaiah, aged 49 years,.Retd..Employee} Plot No. 64,-Prashanth Nagar, Sripuram^{Cotony, Moosarambagh, Malakpet'.} Hyderabad.

¶10

Smt. P. Swaroopa, D/o.^{Late P. Nandaiah,aged 48 years, Occ:} f.ogs.ewife H.No. 16-11-16tPtDlN1, Sripuram^{Colony Moosarambagh,Malakpet,} Hyderabad.

¶11

P. Karunakar Goud, S/o.^Late P.^{Nandaiah,aged46 years,Occupation} Business, Rl/o. H.No. 2-2-809,^{Amberpet,Hyderabad.}

¶12

P. Ananthaiah Goud, S/o.^{Late P. Nandaiah, aged 44 years,Occupation} Business, H.No. 16-1 1-16i16711, Sripuram^{Colony, tvlalakpet Hyderabad.}

¶13

P. Amaravathi, D/o. Late P. Nandaiah,^{aged 58 years, Ri/o. Ramanthapur,} Hyderabad.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of A.P. Rep. by its^{Prl. Secretaryto Government,Revenue} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Commissioner^{(Appeals)Office of the Chief Commissionerof Land} Administration, A.P. Hyderabad.

¶18

The Special Officerand CompetentAuthority'^{U.L.C. Hyderabad.}

¶19

P. Anil Kumar Goud, S/o. Late Nandaiah,^{aged53 years, Occ: Business}

¶20

P. Ganeshwar Goud,^{S/o. Late Nandaiah, aged 55 years, Occ: Business,}

¶21

Respondent No.4 & 5 are^{Rl/o. H.No. 2-2-64,Amberpet,Hyderabad.}

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

¶24

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a wril or order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the Speciar officer and competent Authority (S.o. and c.A.) that is the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings No. J2i13413 and 13414 of 1976 dt. 26_7_200T U/s. 8(4) of the U.L.C. Act decraring rhe petitioners as surprus rand horders to an extent of g220.06 sq. meters in S.No. 13/2/es,^.15 and 67 situated at Teegalguda Village, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad and the consequentiar notification issued U/s. 10(1 ) of the U'L.c' Act in proceedings No. J2l 13413 and 13414 of 1976 dt. 26-10-2007 declaration uis. 10(3) in proceedings No. J2l.13413 and 13414 of 1976 dt. 11-12-2007 and notice u/s. 1o(5) in proceedings No. J2l1341 3 and 13414 ot 1976 dt. 31-1-2008 as arbitrary iflegar and viorative of Articres 14 and 300-4 of the constitution of rndia apart from viorative of principres of naturar justice and consequenfly decrare that the petitioners are not hording any excess rand since they are saved, as per the circurar instructions issued in circurar Memo 17377|uL-1 (Regular one) 2008-'t dt. 24-B-2ooB as possession of lands are nor taken in the interest of justice.

¶25

l.A. NO:1 oF 2009(wP MP. NO: 11199 OF 2009)

¶26

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the rand admeasuring Ac 2.21 guntas in sy.No. 13/2 , 'r5 and 67 of reegaraguda Virage, Saidabad Mandar, Hyderabad District, pending disposar of the writ petition in the interest of justice

¶27

¶28

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015^(WP MP. NO: 5977 OF 20151

¶29

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 receive the additional material papers in the above writ petition.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner No.1, 3, 5 & 6: SRI TANGEDA DAYANANDA RAO Counsel for the Petitioner No.2 & 4: SRI VIVEK JAIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

THE HON,BLE SRI^{JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶32

WRIT PETITIO N No.8556^{OF 2OO9}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Wril- Petition under^{Article226 of the Constitutionof}

¶35

India,^{is filed b1' the petitioners,seekingthe following relief:}

¶36

"--....to declere.^{tl.r. action of respondent /Vo-3in issuing theproceedings} No.J2/ 13413 & 13414/ 1976^{dated 26.07.2007 under Section8ft) of the} L\rban Larl.l^{Ceilulg Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act,1976)declaingthe} petittone,rs os -surpfuls lo.nd^{holdersto oextentof 9220.A6Sq mtrs in} SA.Nos.13/2/et, 15 ancl^{67 situatedat Teegalguda Village,Saidabad} Mandal, Hy<lerabttd^{and the coLsequentiolnotification issued un(ferSection} 1O(1) of tILe Act ii^{proceedingsNo.J2/13413and13414 of 1976' dated} 26.iO.rOO7; d.eclaration under^{Section 1O(3) oI tl@ Act in proceedings} No.J2/ 1341-3 r.nd^{13414of 1976,dated 11.122007 dnd notice under} Sectton 1O(5) of^{ttLe Acl. in proceedingtsNo.J2/13413dnd 1341a of 1976'} dated 31.0i.2a08^{Qs arbitrdry,iUegal and uiolatiueof Articles14 and} 3OO A oI tlp, CoislltutLon^{of lrldia'.}

¶37

Considered the submissions of^{the learned Counsel for the} respective^{parties and perused ther:ecord.}

¶38

Learned Senior Counsel appearing^{for thepetitioners} submitted that^{the ChiefCommissioner of Land Administration} (CCLAI uide^{proceedingsin CCLA'sRef.No.UC3/19Ol2008 dated} 08.09.2008^{has observed that in the appealuide No.Hydl71l2OO8,} the orders of^{the competent authority under Section 8(4) of the} Urban Land^{(Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 (for short"ULC Act"),} status quo orders^{were granted and the matter was reservedfor} orders. Consequently, on^{repealing of ULC Act on 27.03.2008,the}

)

CVRR.J wP 8s56 2009

status quo orders could not be communicated to all the concerned and the appeal was closed as abated on 30.04.2009.

¶44

The learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 relying upon paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit has submitted that a notice under Section lO (l) of the Act was issued and the same was published in A. p. Gazette, dated 26.10.2007 . Thereafter, notice under Section 10 (3) of the Act was issued on 20.12.2OO7 and notice under Section lO (5) of the Act was issued on 31.01.2008 and the possession of the property was taken over uide proceedings, dated 10.03.2008.

¶45

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that during the subsistence of slatus quo orders passed by the appellate authority, by no stretch of imagination, it can bc said that the respondents have taken possession of the property by following the procedure contemplated under law. It is further submitted that pending passing of . final orders by the Commissioner/appellate authority and during the operation of the status quo orders, the Repeal Act, carne into force w.e.f . 27.O3.2OO8.

¶46

It appears from the record that the respondents have taken de jure possession without following the procedure as mandated under Section 1O(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act. As such the contention of the respondents that they have taken possession

)

C.E}R,J wP 8556 2009

before the Repeal Act came into force and the surplus land vested in the State on the teeth of the slatus quo orders, is not tenable in law. The letter dated 08.09.2O08 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, reveals that the possession has not been taken as on the date of filing of appeal and de faclo possession if any, taken after the Repeal Act, is not sustainable and the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act, 1976 are declared as abated. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 are liable to be set aside.

¶52

Accordirrglr., this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings No.J2l13413 and 13414 of 1926, dated 26.0Z.2OOZ issued by respondent No.3 are set aside.

¶53

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE, on this Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh Day of November, Two Thousand and Twenty Four.

¶55

¶56

Sd/. A.V.S. PR,ASAD GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER r

¶57

To, 1. T.he Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶58

The Commissioner (Appeals) Office of the Chief, Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶59

The Special Officer and Competent Authority, U.L.C. Hyderabad.

¶60

One CC to SRI TANGEDA DAYANANDA RAO, Advocate tOpUCl

¶61

One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate tOpUCl

¶62

Two ccs to GP for Assignment, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶63

Ltl{

¶64

Two CD Copies BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2711112024

ORDER

WP.No.8556 of 2009

t,,( Ig
<br>,o ($(
(,,t- 1{ rEB 2m i',
t
*
,
I.,ATCHeO

¶70

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

P. Dass Goud v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Dass Goud v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raparthy Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Ramavath Dharma Vs State of Telangana

M/S.Kishoresons Investments Vs State of Telangana

Kongari Sathaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Gyaneshwar Goud Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Secretary to revenue

Kaleem Ahmed Ansari Vs State of Telangana and 4 others