IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22259 OF 2000 Between: Malla Ramayamma and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22259 OF 2000 ORDER: The petitioners seek to reopen the issue which was closed as long back as in the year 1980. In the first round of litigation, the vendors of the petitioners namely Sri K.Appala Raju and Dadi Babji Rao approached this Court seeking to substitute the lands, which they purchased from the petitioners on the ground that the said lands were declared to be surplus under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). After the dismissal of the said writ petition, this writ petition is filed by the legal representatives of the vendors seeking to declare the proceedings of the 1st respondent said to have been passed in C.C.Nos.4879 and 4880 of 1976, dated 16.08.2000 with a consequential direction to set aside the connected proceedings including the notifications under Section 10 of the Act and further direction not to interfere with the legal possession of the petitioners and their successors in interest. 2. It may be noted that although in the writ petition the petitioners sought for a relief to declare the proceedings in C.C.Nos.4879 and 4880 of 1976 dated 16.08.2000 which is said to have been passed by the 1st respondent, no such proceedings have been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that no such proceedings have been passed by the 1st respondent. On this ground itself the writ petition could have been dismissed. The learned counsel however, refers to the memo L.Dis.No.193/2000/B3, dated 08.09.2000 of the 2nd respondent herein, wherein the 2nd respondent, in response to the request of the 1st and 3rd petitioners for supply of certified copies of the proceedings passed under Sections 8(4) and 9 of the Act, replied that the copies could not be supplied on the ground that the record was already sent to the High Court in connection with W.P.No.2246 of 1994. The learned counsel therefore represents that the said memo dated 08.09.2000 is the cause of action for filing this writ petition and further submits that as a consequence, the petitioners have also challenged all the proceedings under which the lands were declared to be surplus. 3. The 1st petitioner claims to be the legal representative of one Malla Ramu Naidu and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners claim to be the legal representatives of one Pilla Ramu Naidu. Malla Ramu Naidu and Pilla Ramu Naidu jointly purchased an extent of Ac.0.48 cents of land situated in survey Nos.72 and 91 of Vepagunta village of Pendurti Mandal, Visakhapatnam District under registered sale deeds dated 05.10.1968 and 04.06.1969. Since both the said persons owned and possessed lands situated in other places namely Kanchavapuram and Dondapa, they filed declarations as per the provisions of the Act. The declarations were registered as C.C.Nos.4879 and 4880 of 1976 respectively. The authorities conducted proceedings and Malla Ramu Naidu and Pilla Ramu Naidu were declared to be surplus land holders to an extent of 0922 sq.meters and 0712 sq.meters respectively. Those proceedings became final. The petitioners sold the lands situated in Survey Nos.72 and 91 of Vepagunta village in favour of Sri K.Appala Raju and Dadi Babji Rao jointly under the registered sale deeds in the year 1979. The petitioners claim that they were not aware of the proceedings pending before the Urban Ceiling Authorities until they received a legal notice dated 16.08.2000 from their vendees. As they realized that the proceedings, wherein their predecessors-in-title were declared to possess surplus land came to their knowledge only in the year 2000, by virtue of the said legal notice, they applied for certified copies. In reply thereto, a memo L.Dis.No. 193/2000/B3, dated 08.09.2000 was served on the petitioners stating that since the entire record was sent in connection with W.P.No.2246 of 1994, certified copies could not be furnished. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had no notice of the proceedings and therefore, the orders declaring the lands possessed by them as surplus are liable to be interfered with. It is also further submitted that the authorities could not have determined the lands as surplus. As the lands in Survey Nos.72 and 91 were not vacant lands within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act as the authority should not have calculated the lands pertained to the buildings. 6. It is to be noted as observed above, the petitioners sold away this lands in favour of third parties in the year 1979 and those purchasers in fact approached this Court in W.P.No.2246 of 1994. This Court by order dated 25.02.1994 inter alia observed as follows:- “ This writ petition came up before me for admission on 18.2.1994. The Government Pleader for Revenue as also the Standing Counsel for VUDA appeared then and I directed them to verify as to whether the land in question is vested in the Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the date of taking possession of the land in question and also to produce the relevant records. Now, the records are produced before me. It has come to light on perusal of the records, that the declarant i.e. the petitioners’ vendor did not mention in his declaration about the sale of this land either by agreements of sale or otherwise. Even in his statement made, nothing of that sort was mentioned. On 30.9.1978, orders were passed computing the area held by the petitioners’ vendor and this land which was purchased by the petitioners was held to be an excess land. The said order had become final. Thereafter, Sec.10(3) notification was issued in the year 1981 and the land absolutely vested in the Government free of all encumbrances. It was followed by Sec.10(5) notice dt.31.8.1982 and possession was taken over by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and in turn handed over to the VUDA on 26.4.1991.” The Court further observed that the sale is void as those purchasers purchased the plots on 06.08.1979 after the commencement of the Act which came into effect on 28.01.1976. 7. The respondents 1 and 2 in their counter filed in this writ petition have stated as follows:- “ So far as the averments made in para-2 are concerned, it is submitted that one Sri Pilla Ramunaidu and Sri Malla Ramunaidu have filed statements in Form-I under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act declaring the properties held by them and the same was numbered as CC.No.4879/76 and 4880/76 respectively. After due enquiry the draft statement U/s.8(1) was issued on 30-11-77 determining the surplus land holding as 0.0712 Sq.Metres (CC.No.4879/76) and 0.0922 Sq.Metres (CC.No.4880) in S.No.72 of Vepagunta village. The declarants have not raised any objections to the statement. Consequently on 20-9-78 and 30-9- 78, 8(4) orders were passed in CC.No.4879/80 and 4880/76 respectively confirming the draft statement issued U/s.8(1) of the Act and final statement U/s.9 of the Act was issued on 29-10-80 and 7-3-79. The notification U/s.10(1) of the Act was issued on 25-11-80 and 25-11-80. The declaration U/s.10(3) of the Act was also sent for publication on 9-7-81 and 9-7-81. The notice U/s.10(5) and 10(6) were issued on 30-1-82 and the same was acknowledged by both the declarants. After completion of all the statutory provisions of the Act, these two bits of surplus land was allotted to VUDA by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.5013 Revenue (UC.I) Department dt.19-12-1980 and the possession of the land was handed over to VUDA on 24-4-1993.” 8. From the above, it is manifest that the petitioners cannot claim that they had no notice of the proceedings. It is apparent that all the proceedings were within the knowledge of the original declarants and this writ petition has been filed with a design. The petitioners being the legal representatives of the original declarants are bound by all the legal consequences that befall on them as successors-in-interest of the original owners and declarants. As noted above, the proceedings related to the year 1992 and this writ petition, which is filed in the year 2000 suffers from serious latches. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 2nd June 2010 Ivd