IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26303 of 2008 Between: 1 S.K.Zeenat Babu S/o.S.K.jani Shaheed R/o.12-1-893, Asif nagar,Hyderabad-28 2 Nazneen Ahmed W/o.Shaik Md.Nisar R/o.8-1-284/A/.52, Shaikpet,Golconda Mandal Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government Revenue (UCI) Dept., secretariat,Hyderabad 2 Urban Land Ceiling Authority FAC),rep.by its Special Officer & Competent Authority,Nampally,Hyderabad 3 M/s.Osmania University Employees Co-operative Housing Society, Central Workshop, Osmania University, campus Hyderabad, rep.by its Presidnet D.K.Narayana 4 G.Rahul Reddy S/o.Sri Ranjith Reddy R/o.124, PS Nagar,Near Vijayanagar Nursing Home Vijayanagar colony,Masab Tank,Hyderabad 5 G.Rameshwar S/o.Sri Ranjith Reddy R/o.124, PS Nagar,Near Vijayanagar Nursing Home Vijayanagar colony,Masab Tank ,Hyderabad 6 G.Rajiv Reddy S/o.Sri G.Raghava Reddy R/o.124, PS Nagar,Near Vijayanagar Nursing Home Vijayanagar colony,Masab Tank ,Hyderabad 7 The Tahsildar, Sheikpet Mandal, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 1 ,2 & 7 in promoting the interest of the Respondents 3 to 6 and thereby attempting to dispossess the 1st petitioner from the property bearing H.Nos.8-1-284/A/51, admeasuring 400 Sq.yards in Sy.Nos.322 & 323 Shaikpet village covered under REgd.Doc.No.2200/1996 and the 2nd Petitoner from the property bearing H.Nos.8-1-284/A/52,& 8-1-284/A/52/A admeasuring 490 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.322 & 323 Shaikpet village covered under Regd.Doc.Nos.2112/1996 & 2631/1996 as illegal, arbitrary,malafide and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents not to arbitrary, malafide and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the said properties. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners claim to have purchased 400 Sq. yards of land in Sy.Nos.322 and 323 of Shaikpet Revenue Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, from an agreement holder of the original owner. Since the said land is a part of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, declaration was filed by the landholders, and it came to be declared as surplus. Some persons, who have since become the members of the third respondent society, purchased substantial part of that land namely, Acs.6.13 guntas, from the original owner. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002, providing for allotment/regularization of excess land. The members of the third respondent society and in particular, respondents 4 to 6, have availed the benefit under that, and G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 12.01.2007 was issued in their favour. The corresponding sketches were also enclosed to the G.O. The grievance of the petitioners is that, on the strength of regularization made in their favour in G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 12.01.2007, respondents 3 to 6 are trying to interfere with their possession. Therefore, the petitioners seek appropriate direction. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’), which was brought into existence with the objective of ensuring proper and equitable distribution of urban landed property, has virtually lost its relevance and it became source of friction and litigation between Government and citizens or citizens inter se. The sincerity on the part of the Government, or the lack of it, is evident from the fact that devices were evolved from time to time, to defeat the provisions of the Act, and to extract money from the individuals, under the garb of implementing it. G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002, was issued, providing for regularization/retention of the excess land, albeit as landholders or transferees or even encroachers. The only requirement is that the rate stipulated by the Government must be paid. Respondents 3 to 6 have, no doubt, availed the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002 vide order in G.O.Ms No.36 dated 12.01.2007. However, by itself, G.O.Ms.No.36 cannot confer additional rights of ownership or possession upon them. Ultimately, any beneficiary under G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002, has to fall back upon the source of title, which existed prior to extension of that benefit. Conversely, the rights of the petitioners, if any, cannot be defeated by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 12.01.2007. The parties have to work out their remedies by approaching the proper Court of law. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies to protect their alleged possession over the land by filing a suit. In such proceedings, the parties shall have to establish their rights through independent source, as regards title or possession and the Government Orders issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002, by themselves, do not bring any independent situation. It is also made clear that the alleged sale in favour of the petitioners shall stand or fall on its own strength, particularly, in the light of the proceedings of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:23.04.2009 sj