Mohd. Akbar Vs State of Telangana

Sri Laxmi Rallabandi, Wo. Raghvender^{Rao Rallabandi, Aged44 years, Occ-} Housewife, R/0. H.No.3-13-^1142180, Gokulnagar, Mallapur^{Village, Nacharam} ,^Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

¶13

¶14

3 4 5

¶15

Telangana 50000 1 .

¶16

R5 is suo motu impleaded as^per G.O.dt. 04.03.2025.

¶17

..RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more^particularly in the nature^{of Writ} of Certiorari to quash and set-aside, the^{refusal ordervide} No.S4tP.7t2)2l/Refusal Order^{No.2/25, dated.O4.O2.2025on the guiseof ULC} clearance as totally illegal, arbitrary,^{unjust,contraryto the law and also in} violation of Article 14, 19,21 and 300A^{of lndianconstitution, and consequently} thereby directing the Respondent^No.4 to^{receive, register and releasethe} document after due registration in respect of Southern^{Portion of residential Plot} No. 133 vide Municipal No. 3-13-14212/1 33/A,^{(PlTlN No. 1010512437)'in} Survey No. 95, admeasuring 133.5 Sq.^{Yards out of total land of 267.82 Sq.}

¶19

Yards, with built up area of 125 Sq. Feet situated at Chanikyapuri Coloy, Mallapur Villagre, Kapra Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri, Hyderabad

¶20

lA NO: 1 aF 2025

¶21

Petition under Secticn 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 Respondents No.4 to receive, register and release the document after due registraticn in respect of Southern Portion of residential Plot No. 133 vide Municipal No. 3-13-142121133/4, (PlflN No. 1010512437), in Survey No. 95, admeasuring'i33.5 Sq. Yards out of total land of 267.82 Sq. Yards, with built up area of 125 S;q. Feet situated at Chanikyapuri Coloy, Mallapur Village, Kapra Circle, Uppal l/andai, Medchal Malkajgiri, Hyderabad

¶22

Counselfor tl're Petitioner: SRl. DAMODAR MUNDRA

¶23

Counsel for ttre Respondent: Smt. S. SRAVANTHI,

¶24

AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶25

Counsel for tlne Respondent: SRI HABEEBUDDIN,

¶26

AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶27

W.P. NO: 5831 OF 2025

¶28

Between:

¶29

Mohd. Akbar, S/o. Abdul Khader Age 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Chankyirpuri Colony, Hyderabad.

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registrertion Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶33

Commis'sioner and lnspector General, Stamps and Registration Department, Secreta riat, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶34

District llegistrar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

¶35

The SutrRegistrar, Kapra, Medchal- Malkajgiri District

¶36

Urban Land ceiling Qe.nalpent, 3rd Floor, chandravihar complex, Nampally, M G Road, Mg-zgmjahi Market, Opposite Exhibition Grounds, HyderabaA; Telangana 500001

¶37

R5 is srro motu impleaded as per C.O.dt. 04.03.2025.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ^{more particularlyin the nature of} Writ of Certiorari to^quash and^{set-aside,the refusal ordervide} No.54lP.6t2}2ltRefusal Order^{No.1/25, dated.O4l02l2O25 on the guise of ULC} clearance as totally illegal, arbitrary,^{unjust, contrary to the law and also in} violation of Article 14, 19,21^{and 300A of lndian constitution,and consequently} thereby directing the^{RespondentNo.4 to receive, register and release the} document after due registration^{in respectof Northern Portion of residentialPlot} No. 133 vide Municipal No.^{3-13-142121133/A, (PlTlN No. 1010512437),in} Survey No. 95, admeasuring^{133.5 Sq. Yards out of total land of 267.82 Sq.} Yards, with built up area of^{125 Sq. Feet situated at ChanikyapuriColoy,} Mallapur Village, Kapra Circle,^{Uppal Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri, Hyderabad} lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Courtmay be pleasedto} direct the Respondents No.4^{to receive, register and releasethe document after} due registration in respect of^{Northern Portion of residential'PlotNo. 133 vide} Municipal No. 3-13-142121133/A,^{(PlTlN No. 1010512437), in Survey No.95,} admeas.uring 133.5 Sq. Yards^{out of total land of 267.82 Sq. Yards, with built up} area of 125 Sq. Feet situated^{at Chanikyapuri Coloy, Mallapur Village, Kapra} Circle, Uppal Mandal,^{Medchal Malkajgiri,Hyderabad}

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. DAMODAR MUNDRA}

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent^{Smt. S. SRAVANTHI,} AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent:^{SRIHABEEBUDDIN,} AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶44

The Court made the following:^{COMMON ORDER}

¶45

3

¶46

SK,.J

¶47

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶48

TIIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶49

WRIT PETITION No.5736 and 5831 of 2025

¶50

DATE: O6.OL.2O26

¶51

Between:

¶52

I Sri Laxmi Rallabandi Petitioner in WP No.5736 of 2025 2 I\4ohr1. Akbar Petitioner in WP No.583 | of 2025

¶53

And

¶54

l. TLrc Statc o[^'I'clangana, re prcscnLcd bt' its Principal Secr:tary, Revenue (Stamps and Registrarion) Depirrtment, Sec:retariat, Hyderabad and four others

¶55

....Respondents

¶56

COMMO]![ ORDER:

¶57

Sinr:e the lls and subject property involved in both the writ petitions is one and the sarne, these writ have been taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by way of common order.

¶58

The se Writ Petitions are Iiled seeking a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiora-ri to quash and set

¶59

aside the Intimation of refusal

\

f

4

SK,

No.53/P6l2o2slRefusal order No. 1 l2o2s and dated No.5alP7 l2o2slRefusal order No.2 /2o2s, 04 .02.2025 respectively under the guise of Urban Land ceiling clearance as ilregar, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and sought a direction to the respondent No.4 to receive, register and release the documents in respect of Northern and^'southern Portions of residential plot No. 133, vide Municipal No.3- t3- 142 l2 / 133 I A (F,rrN No. 101s 1 24321 in sy.N.95, admeasuring to an extent of 133.5 sq.yards each, out of total land of 267.g2 Sq.yards, situated at chanikyapuri colony, Mallapur Village, Kapra circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchar-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad.

¶65

Heard Sri Damodar Mundra, rearned counsel for the petitioners and smt.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for stamps and Registration and Mr. Habeebuddin, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents.

\

c

SK, J

+. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally one Mr. Mohammed Vaziruddin purchase<l the resiclential plot No.133, vide Municipal No.3- 13- 1 42 l2l r33l A (PtlN No.1 O10524371, admeasuring to an extent of 267.82 Sq.Yards, situated 1n Sy. N<>.95, situated at Chanikyapuri Colony, Mallapur /illage, Kapra Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property') vide registered document No.53B4 I l99O clated 1 5.06. 1990 from one Mr.Md.Rahaman Ali and thereafter the narne of Mohamm ed Vazinrddin was also mutated in the Municipa I records. The said Mohammed Vaziruddin died on^',27.1O.2O 16 and his wife Haleem Unnisa also died on 06.05 .2O2I. Consequent on death of Vaziruddin and Haleem Unnisa, their legal heirs got the prop:rtv divide:d into two shares and intended to sell the subject property through a registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and accordingly sale

\ i

//

r

6

SK,

deeds were presented on ol.o2.2o2s before the respondent No.4 for registration duly paying required registration fee and the said documents r,rrere received as document Nos.P6/2o2s and p7 12025 respectively and the respondent No.4 sent intimation of impugned refusal letters dated 04.02.2o2s to the petitioners on the ground that the subject property is under Urban Land ceiling (for brevity 'uLC). In the said refusal orders, it was stated that Mr.Rahaman AIi was declared as excess property under the Land ceiling Act vide File No.F 2/2L311982, from whom the vendors of .the^petitioners purchased the subject property,

¶76

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that upon receipt of refusal orders, the petitioners approached the respondent No.4, who informed that until and unless ULC clearance certificate is produced from the Revenue Department they are not going to register the documents. The

¶77

\ {

¶78

SK, J

¶79

petitionr:rs have zrlso informed to the respondent No.4 that the subject property was also regularized. under Land Regulanzation Scheme vide G.O.Ms.No. gO2, M.A, dated 3 I . 12.2OO7 in rerms of Rule-6 of A. P. Regularizatron of unapproved, illegal layout Rules, 2oo8 framed therein. Further the neighbouring owners of the subject property already got the sale Deeds registered frorn the respondent No.4 and even GHMC ras also granted permission for constructions of building in the area, as such the question of ULC clearan<:e does not arise. The other plots situated in survey IVo.95 were registered by the respondent No.4 till dat:, but surprisingly, the respondent No.4 refused to register the sale deeds presented by the petition,3rs on the ground of ULC proceedings and the said action of the respondent No.4 in refusing to register the sale <leeds presented by the petitioners is totally i.legal and arbitrary \

I

8

SK,

The learned^{Counsel for the petitioners would} further submit that,^{the Land ceiling Act was repealed} way-back in the year, 2008^{and the Vendors of the} petitioners is in continuous^{possessionand enjoyment} of the property and^{got assessedbefore the Municipal} corporation and^{paying tax regularly. The respondent} No.4 has registered^{several plots in respect of the very} same survey No.95,^{however, refused to register the} sale deeds presented^{by the petitioners.}

¶84

The learned counsel^{for the petitioners rn ould} further submit that^{on one hand the respondentNo.4} is continuously registering^{the other plots situatedin} Sy.No.95 from 1985 to^{2025, oo the other hand he is} refusing to register the^{subject plots in the very sarne} Sy.No.95 as per his^{whims and fancies and prayed the} Court to allow both^the writ^{petitions by directingthe} respondent No.4 to receive,^{register and release the} ,'11

\

9

SK, J

documents presented by the petitioners, without

¶89

reference to the refusal orders.

¶90

Th<: learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions placed reliance on the follo'w,ing Judgment

¶91

1 The Sub-Registrar, Shameerpet Vs. K.Ra-mq.krishna Raju^I 2 A.P. Electical Equipment Corporation Vs., To.hsildar and others2

¶92

The lea1p.,1 Assistar-rt Government Pleader for

¶93

Stamps and Registration basing on the counter filed by the resprtndent No.4 r,vould submit that as seen from the list c,f prohibitcd propertv land in survey No.95 of Mallapur Village to an extent of 51 ,799.76 Sq.Meters is shown as ULC property vide File No.F2l2L3/82 and one the said ULC propert-v belonging to Mohd.ReLhaman Ali, from whom the ancestors of the Vendors of the petitioners purchased the subject

¶94

I Division B:nch .Ir,rclgn-rent of this in Court ir WA No.7O7 of 2OO,2, Datecl 21.Q7 .2OOq

¶95

2 2025 SCC Online SCC 4.+7 t I

¶96

10

¶97

SK,

¶98

property vide document No.5384 11990^{on the file of} SRO, Uppal.

¶99

1O. The learned Assistant^{Government Pleader would} further submit that^{the parties to the documents in} question faiied to produce any^{document to show that} the schedule property is^{notprohibitory orULC} property and also failed to^{produce any document with} regard to regularizatton of^{the subject property and} also failed to^{produce permissions if any granted by} the Municipal authorities.^{In view of the salne, the} respondent No. 4 refused^{to registeredthe documents} presented by the Petitioners.

¶100

1 1. The learned Assistant^{Government Pleader would} further submit that at the^{time of presentation of the} documents, the parties to^{the documentin question} failed to produce any material^{documentsandthe} respondent No.4 refused to^{register the documents} \ presented by the Petitioners.

II

11

SK, J

\ \

L2. The learnecl Assistant Government Pleader for Assignm ent basing on the counter filed by the respond :nt No. 5 rvould submit that one Mr. Mohd Rahaman Ali has filed statement in Form No.l under Section 6 ( I ) ol' the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, L97 6 (for brevity 'the ULC Act,) individually vide CC No.F21213182, wherein the said Rahaman Ali declared certain landed properties as excess lands, arnong which the land to an extent of Ac. 12.3'), Guntas situated in Sy.No.95 of Mallapur, was declarecl as excess lands, in,,vhich the subject property is situat.ed. Subsequently, Notifications under Sections 8(1) an<l 8(3) of the ULC Act were issued vide File No.F2 I 21,13 I 82 dated 1 2 . 08. L9g4 and final orders issued und.er Section 9$l of the ULC Act and final Stateme:nt under Secton 9 of the ULC Act was reissuerl on 19.10 .L994 duly determining the surplus lands i.e. an 51799.75 sq.yards in Sy.No.9S vide file No.F2l'.113 / 7982. Further, a Notification under/

t

t2

SK

section 10(¹ ) of the^{ULC Act was also issued in} Bxtraordinary A.P.Gazette^{onl2.O 1 . 1995 and} declaration under Secton^{10(3) of ULC Act was issued} on 27 .06. 1995 and^{got published inExtraordinary} A.P.Gazette on 13.07. i995.^{Since the declarant failed} to surrender the said land^{within the stipulatedperiod,} order under Section 10(6)^{of the Act was issued on} 27.10.1995 authorizing the^{Enquiry oficer to take over} possession of the surplus land^{and there are no merits} and requested to dismiss^{both the writ petitions.}

¶110

After hearing both^{sides and upon perusingthe} material on record, this^{Court is of the considered view} that the petitioners^{purchased the suit schedule} property and presented documents^{for registrationon} O1.O2.2O25 in respect^{of their respective shares before} the respondent No.4 and^{he has given document} numbers as P.6 I 2025 and^P7 12025^{respectively.} Thereafter, both the^{documentswere refusedthrough}

\ \

13

SK, J

impugneC intimations of refusal on 04.O2.2025 on the ground that the suit schedule property falls under ULC and the petitioners failed to produce the supporting proceedir-rgs for NOC issued by the ULC / Revenue authorities and also failed to produce evider-rce as to whether permissions obtained from the Municipal authorities in respect of the constructions of the schedul€' property tiguring in the documents

¶115

L4. Thr: contention of the petitioners is that the ancestors of Vendors of the petitioners purchased the schedulo property from one Md.Rahaman AIi through registered document No. 5384 I 1990 dated 15.06. 1990. After dr:ath of ancestors of the Vendors of the petitione:rs, their legal heirs divided the subject property into two shares and intended to seIl the same to the petitioners herein and when the petitioners presente:d the sale deed.s, the respond.ent No.4 refused to register the s€une through impugned orders.

\ \

f

l' i I

l4

In view of the grounds mentioned in^the impugned refusal orders, this Court directed^the petitioners to implead the ULC authorities^and accordingly impleaded the respondent^{No.5 in both} the writ petitions.

¶121

The contention of the petitioners is^{that ancestor} of the Vendors of the^{petitionerspurchasedthe} property in the year, 1990 and obtained^permissions from the Municipal authorities and also^constructed buildings thereon with Municipal Door

¶122

No. 1 4212 / 133/A (PITIN No. 1010s^12437),.

¶123

L7. The contentions of the respondents^{are that the} property to an'extent of 51799.76 Sq.Meters^situated in Sy.Nos.95 was shown as ULC^{property vide File} No.F2/213/82 and the said ULC^{propertybelongsto} Md.Rahaman Ali, from whom the^{ancestors of the} Vendors of the petitioners purchased the^schedule property. The contention of the ULC Department^is

\

I

i5

SK, J

that aft,:r following the procedure, the subject property was got published in the A.P. Gazette (Extraorclinary) No.22, dated 13.O7.1995. Since the declarants failed to surrender the surplus land r,rrithin the stipulated time, the competent authority issued orders ott 27.10.1995 authorizing the Enquirw Officer to take over possession of the surplus land under Section 10(6) of the Act and thereafter by conducing panchanama and taken over possession of the subject Iand o.nr1 in view of the same the subject property belongs to the Government and therefore the registeritrg authorities refused to register the documents presented by the petitioners.

¶129

The Sections 10 (3) (5) and (6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling;lnd Regulation) Act, 1976, reads as follows:

¶130

\ l-

¶131

(3) ,qt any time after the publication of the notiiication unrler sub-section (1), the competent authority may, by notification published in the official Gazettc of the state concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referretl to, in thc rrotification publishe.d under sub-section (1) sl'rall, r,r,ith effect trom such tiate

¶132

I/l

¶133

16

¶134

as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired bv the State Governmerrt anc{ uporr the publication of such cleclaration, such lancl shall be cleerned to have vested absolutelv irr the State Goverrrment free frorr all encumbrances with effect frcnr the clate so specifieci.

¶135

(5) Where an' \racant land is vested in tl're Statc Governrnent under sub-section (3), the comp)etent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person w,ho rnav be in possession of it to surrender or dcliver possessi<;n thereof to the State Government or to any F)erSon c{ulv authorizerl bv thc State Government in this behalf w,ithin thirtv days oi thc servicc of the notice.

¶136

(6) If any person refuscs or iails to complv with an order made uncler sub-section (5), the competc.r'rt authority may take possession of the vacant lancl or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as ma1' be necessary. Explanation.-ln this section, in sub-section (1) of scctiorr L1 ancl in sections'1.4 and23, "State Government", in relation to-

¶137

(a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government, means the Central GovernmcnU

¶138

(b) any vacant land owneci by anv State Government and situated in a Union territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the

¶139

{

¶140

\ t

¶141

t7

¶142

SK, J

¶143

Cantonments ,{ct, 7924, 7 of 7924. means that State Government.

¶144

IrL the instant case, as on the date of Notification und.er iSection 1O(5) of the Act, the ancestors of the vendorsi of the petitioners are in possession of the subject property. As per the documents filed bv the responctent No.S along with the counter it shows that the respondent authorities have issued notices dated 26.08.1995 to Mohd.Rahaman Aii, ar that poinr of time ht: sold the property to the ancestors of the Vendorr; of the petitioners. Without issuing notice to the ancestors of the Vendors of the petitioners, rn,ho were in possession of the subject property, the respondent authorities have conducted paper pancha::r.ama.

¶145

V/ith regard to the issue of paper panchanarna, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

\ I

nt

18

A.P. Electricat^{Equipment corporation (supra 2).}

¶150

The relevant^{portion of the said Judgmentis extracted}

¶151

as under:

¶152

"24.^{ThisCourtin the case<'tf Bhctt'ttttgar ("nit'arsit)' t"} SugarMill^(P) Lt(l.,^{(200i) 2 SC(' lll.in the context} 'o"'nna^{of the} Cujurut Town^{planrringand UrbanI)cveloprttcnt Act. lc)76 held} thus:-

¶153

,,The statutory interdicl of-use ancl enio.ytnenl of lhe prctperty must he strictly c1nstrucd.^{It is wellsetllecllhut u'hen a .\talutory} authority is requircd^{tct clo a tlting in u} lturticular^manner,the same ututhorifies^{whilctu'litt14 trnder tht' .ruitl .'1ct ure onl-1"} creature of stalute.^{Tltct' mustact trithin the} .four^corner't thereof^'.

¶154

Thus, applying^{tlre principte of strict constructionas} explained in-ihe^{aforesaid two decisions, the authoritiesare} required to act strictly^{in accordanceu'ith the statutory} provisions. Thus,^{when sub-section (5) o{'Sectioul0 nrandates} giuing notice of an order^{turder the said subsection fo the person} In poisession, the^{same is requiredto be compliedrvith in its} true letter ancl^{spirit.Considcringtfue naturcoI rights involved,} mere issuance of^{notice rvithoutservice thereo['.cannot be said} to be due compliance^{with the provisionsof the statute. Besides,} the provisions of^{subsection(6) of Section 10 car"r be resortedto} onty ir the^{person fails to compll' with an order under sub-} ,..iion (5) thereol^{withina periodof thirtl'days of service of} notice. Hence,^{possessiorrcannot be taken ovcr under Section} 10(6) of the Ait,^{lgT6untessa period of thirty days fromthe} date'of service of^{notice has elapsecl. [n absence of service of} notice under sub-section^{(5) of Section 10. there will be no} starting point^{for calculating the periodol thirty days.In other} wordsltime will^{not startrunnins. he,ce the questionof taki.g} over possession^{under sub-section (6) of Section lOof the Act,} 1976 will not^{arise at all. [n this view of,thettratter,in the case} on hand, it^{was not operl to the respondentauthorities to resort} to the^{provisionsof sub-section(6) of Section10 of the Act,} 1976 without^{first strictly complying with the provisions of sub-} section^{(5) thereof.Hence. sucir action being in contraventionof}

\

19

SK, J

the statutory provisions cannot be sustained and desen,cs to be stru,:k dorrr'n.

¶159

.xxx i

¶160

I'hc rtrcre restine ol'the land under subscctiorr (j) ol'scctitlrr l0 rrould not confer anl,right on the State (iovenlment to har.c c{e .1itc't possession of the vacant land unless there has bccn a vohrntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03. 1999. State has to establish that tliere has been a voluntary surrender ol'r'acant lanc or surrender and delivery ol' peaceful possession under subl;ection (5)of Section l0 or fbrceful dispossession under subsection (6) ol Section 10. on failure to estabrish any .f rhose situirtions, the landowner or holder can clainr the bcnctit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. In the case on hand. the Stat-'nrent Gor.'crnrnent has in our considered vier,r, not bccn erble to establish &n-' r:f those situations and hence learnecl Sirr{_rle Judlre rvas right in holding that the appellant herein is entitlccl to gct thc henctlt t"rf Section 3 of Repeal Act. 1989.

¶161

xxx.(

¶162

we have no hesitation in saying that the State has not placcd true a.d correct facts in all respect. Both of us (J.B. pardiwala and R.Mahadevan. J.J.) have worked as judges in our respective I-lig r courts. we had the occasion to decide man), i.atters exar;tl,' of the present type. Our experience so far has been that out of ten lnatters in nine matters it was apparent that the cases wer,l onc of paper possession. The present case is also one of papor possession. The leamed Single Judge was constrained to obsr:rve that having regard to the materiars on recorcl feu, docunrents were found to be ante dated coupled with tabrication ol'evidence to some extent. All this has been dismissecl bv the Div sio. Bench saying that they could be clerical .rn or ari tlrmetical errors".

¶163

2L. TtLe above findings of the Hon'ble supreme court squarel5' apply to the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, as on the date of Notification under

/1

T' I :

20

Section 10 (5) of the Act, the ancestors of the Vendors were in possession of the subject property and without issuing any notice to them, they conducted paper panchanarna. In view of the sarrre, the contention of the respondent authorities that the subject property belongs to the Government cannot be sustained as the sarne was not taken over by following the procedure as contemplated under the ULC Act, 1976.

¶168

In a similar matter, the Honble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Rem,^s held as

¶169

follows:

¶170

"37. Requirement of giving notice under sub-sectiotts⁽⁵⁾ and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word 'may' has been used therein, the word 'may' in both the sub-sections has to be understood as "shall" because a court charged n'ith the task o{'enforcing the statLrte needs to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from failure to implement the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section I I is that it might result the land holder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word 'may' has to be read as^'shall'.

¶171

3 (2013) 4 SCC 280

\ \

2l

SK, J

Let us now examine the effect of Section³ of^{the RepealAct} 15 of 1999 on sub-section⁽³⁾ to Section l0^{of thc Act. TheRepeal Act} 1999 has e,rpressl) repealed the Act 33 of^{1976. The Object and} Retrs,rns of the Repeal Act has already been^{referred to in the earlier} part .rl' this .ludgment. Repeal Act has, however, retained a^savinil claus-'. lhe question whether a right^{has been acquired or liabilitl'} incurrcd under a stzrtute befbre it is^{repealedwilt in each casedepend} on thr construction of the statute^{and the facts of the'particular case.}

¶176

The mcre vesting of the land under sub-section^{(j) of Section} l0 riould not cont-er any right on the State^{Governmentto havede} f'acto possession of the vacant land unless^{there has been a voluntary} surrender ol vacant land before^{18.i.1999.Statehas to establishthat} therc has been a '()luntar!' sun'ender ol^{vacantland or surrender and} deliv:rv of peacelul possession under sub-section⁽⁵⁾ of^{Section l0 or} tbrcctirl riispossession under sub-section⁽⁶⁾ of^{Section10. On failure} to es ablish ant ol lhose situations, the^land owner or^{holder can claint} the bcncllt o1' Section I of the Repeal Act.^{The State Governmentit'l} this apprc'al could not establish any of those^{situations and hence the} t{igh^(iourt is right in holding that the^{respondent is entitled to get the} bene it of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. 43. We, therefbre, find no infirmity in the^judgment of the^High Court and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed so^also the^other appells. No docurnents have been^produced by^{the Stateto show that} the r,:spondents had been dispossessed before coming^{into force of the} I{epcal i\ct and hence, the respondents are entitled to^{get the benefitoi'} Section i ol' thc Repeal Act. However, there^{will be no order as to} costs".

¶177

(Emphasis added)

¶178

Thr: findings of the Honble Supreme Court in^the above Jrrdgment also squarely apply to facts of the instant^,l&Se as there is rro valid proceedings under ULC and without issuing any notice to the holder of the property, the respondent authorities have

t

T

22

t' i: iil

over conducted paper panchanarna and not taken possession of the property as on this date.

¶184

The other specific contention of the petitioners is that, the respondent authorities are registering the documents pertaining to the same survey number, in which the subject property is situated, rvithout any objections and the entire area is covered with residential houses. For this contention, there is^no answer in the counter filed by the respondents^and they are merely relying on the notice issued to the^said Rahamath Ali and also panchanarna and in view of^the same, the refusal orders are not sustainable and^the sarne are liable to be set aside and the respondent authorities have to register the subject documents without taking into account of ULC^proceedings.

¶185

In view of the above findings, these writ^petitions are disposed of by setting aside the impugned^Refusal Intimation Nos.53/P612025/Refusal Order^{No. I} /2025

\ t\

23

SK, J

and No.5+lP7 l2O2:;/Refusal Order No.2 12025, dated 04.O2.20'.25 respectively and the respondent authoritir:s are directed to register and release the subject <locuments presented by the petitioners in P. No. 6 l2r)25 and P. No.7 I 2025, subject to petitioners complyin;g with the provisions of the Indian Registratjon Act. 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

¶190

I{iscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

¶191

writ petit:on, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶192

SD/.P.C.SULEKHA^DEVI SISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶193

/TRUE COPY//

¶194

SECTION^OFFICER One fair coPY^{to THE HON'BLE SRI JU} SARATH (For His LordshiP's^Kind

¶195

To, 1. 11 L.R CoPies.

¶196

The upder^{secretary, Union of lndia, Ministryof Law, Justice andcompany} ,. +[3't?']?y,ff:^'r","nn"n,^{Advocates AssociationLibrary, Hish court} Buildings, HYderabad

¶197

The^{principal sEIr"irw,Stamps and Registration DepartmentSecretariat'} T.S.,H'lderabad.The Oommissioner

¶198

T.S.,H'lderabad.The Oommissioner^{and lnspectorGeneral, Stamps and Registration} Deparf ment,^{Secretariat, HyderaQad'} lql919qna.

¶199

ii[ Di;tricf^{Registrar,tVtedlhal-Malkaj.giriDistrict} .._.

¶200

fne Sub-Regislrar,^Kapra, !tq9.qttgt-^{Malka1gtnuts!r1c1}

¶201

8: o.; c6 t;-SRi.bArvtoonn^MqNDR& {orqgel-t^toPucl 9. Two C:Cs to^{GP'iORSinrrnpS'ANrj REGiSf-nArtON,High Court for the} Siaie irf Telangana^{at Hyderabad-[O.-UTj..} .

¶202