HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.1251 of 2003 Dated: 17-03-2011 Between: Katakam Kishan …Petitioner AND The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad and others Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.1251 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the notice in Rc.No.A3/262/76, dated 7.12.2001 passed by the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban land Ceiling, Warangal-second respondent herein for delivery of the surplus land in Sy.No.854, situated at Waddepally Village of Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘Act’) as illegal, void ab initio and to set aside the same. Writ petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.4.00 gts. of wet land in Sy.No.854, situated at Waddepally Village having purchased the same from its original owner B.Laxmaiah and got mutated the said land in his name in the revenue records. The third respondent without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner passed an order on 7.12.2001 under Section 10(3) of the Act against B.Laxmaiah-vendor of petitioner, who died long ago. Even without giving any notice to the son of B. Laxmaiah, who is a major, the third respondent completed the proceedings under the Act declaring that the declarant-B.Laxmaiah was in excess of land to an extent of 16221 sq.yds. In fact, the entire land to an extent of Ac.4.00 gts. does not belong to B.Laxmaiah and there are other four owners namely, Hanmalu Durgaiah, Komuraiah and others. However, said B.Laxmaiah was the owner of Ac.0.32 gts. only and therefore, he cannot file a declaration including the entire extent of land. On coming to know of the said proceedings and eviction order passed by the respondents 2 to 4, petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent on 31.12.2002, but the first respondent failed to pass any interim orders in the appeal. Taking advantage of the same, it is alleged, the present impugned notice has been issued by the second respondent. It is pleaded that in view of general exemption granted under G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988 and also G.O.Ms.No.455 ad 456, dated 29.7.2002, unauthorized occupation, if any, should be regularized. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the original declarant on filing the declaration, it is not stated by him that he sold the property to any persons including the petitioner. As on the date of passing of order under Section 8(4) of the Act, the declarant was alive and therefore, the death of the declarant was never brought to the notice of the authorities concerned. The original declarant participated in the proceedings initiated under Section 8(4) of the Act. The alleged owners Hanmanlu Durgaiah and Komuraiah have not filed any objections to 8(4) proceedings nor challenged the proceedings of the competent authority. The petitioner is a stranger and therefore, he has no locus standi to question the proceedings. On filing declaration by B.Laxmaiah on 13.8.1976 in Form-I under Section 6(1) of the Act declaring the properties held by him, the same was got enquired and on enquiry, the officer submitted a report on 18.1.1977. Thereafter, the second respondent issued 8(1) draft statement and notice under Section 8(3) on 5.7.1979 declaring the declarant as surplus land holder to an extent of 22452 sq.metres and the copy of the same was served on the declarant on 15.7.1979. On 10.8.1979 the declarant submitted objections stating that all the lands declared by him are agricultural lands and sought exemption of the same from the computation. The declarant further submitted that he gave statement declaring that Sy.No.854/C measuring Ac.2.04 gts., 854/D measuring Ac.2.04 gts., Sy.No.589/B and 590/B measuring Ac.1.20 and Ac.0.20 gts. out of Sy.Nos.82, 83 and 87 situated at Waddepalli Village, Warangal Taluk. He further stated that he installed electric motor for agricultural purposes and he was doing cultivation for the last 20 years and requested to exempt the lands from the computation as they are agricultural lands. After considering the said objections, second respondent passed orders under Section 8(4) of the Act and statement under Section 9 on 4.9.1980 declaring the dclarant as surplus land holder to an extent of 16,221 sq.mtrs after allowing retainable area of 6,000 sq.mtrs i.e. 2000 each to the declarant, his brother and elder son, who are majors by the date of filing declaration. Though the declarant claimed the lands as agricultural lands, which are situated within the Municipal limits of Warangal, he had not placed any material to show that the lands are agricultural lands and the same are being used for agriculture purpose. Further the declarant has not filed any appeal before the Commissioner, Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings and as such the order passed under Section 8(4) and Statement under Section 9 of the Act have become final. The petitioner herein submitted an application under Section 20(1)(b) of the Act seeking exemption of the lands on 12.5.1981 and the same was forwarded to the Government through the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The second respondent issued a notification under Section 10(1) of the Act on 1.3.1986 and the same was published in A.P. Gazette No.53, dated 20.3.1986. The declaration under Section 10(3) was issued on 4.7.1988 and the same was published in A.P. Gazette No.108, dated 19.7.1988. While so, the original declarant filed W.P.No.11704 of 1988 questioning the 10(3) proceedings, dated 4.7.1988 issued by the second respondent and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 4.8.1988 on the ground that the declarant had not preferred any statutory appeal against the orders passed under Section 8(4) and Statement under Section 9 of the Act. Thus the proceedings against the original declarant have become final. While so, the Government vide memo No.97972/UC.II(2)/88-9, dated 7.11.1996 rejected the application of the declarant and directed the second respondent to take over possession of the land on the ground that Sy.No.854 of Waddepally Village is earmarked for other than agriculture purpose in the Master Plan. Thereafter the second respondent issued notice under Section 10(5) of the Act on 7.12.2001, subsequent to which, proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act were issued on 10.6.2002 and possession of the land was taken over on 17.7.2002 under a cover of panchanama and the same was handed over to the Additional Revenue Inspector, Hanamkonda for safe custody. During the pendency of the proceedings before the second respondent, any transactions or alienations would hit by Section 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5th respondent herein, who got impleaded in the writ petition as per the orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.25675 of 2004, stated that the subject-matter of the land, on taking over possession by Government, was allotted to Telangana Medical Public Health & Hospital Employees’ Association, by the District Collector, Warangal vide proceedings dated 24.1.2004 and pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition. Sri A.K. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner purchased the subject-land under unregistered sale deeds, dated 5.5.1978, 6.10.1978, 10.2.1977 and 6.8.1977 and the said sale deeds were validated under Section 5(A) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Pattadar Pass Books Act by the Mandal Revenue Officer vide proceedings in Rc.No.B2/198/99 in January, 2001 after calling for objections. The petitioner who had purchased the property was never issued any notice under Section 10(5) of the Act but the said notice was issued to the declarant and therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. To buttress the said submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Kothuru Babu Surendra Kumar (died) and others v. Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Vijayawada and others[1]. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that the purchase of the subject-land by the petitioner under unregistered sale deeds during the pendency of the proceedings before the second respondent is null and void in view of Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act and that the petitioner cannot claim exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988 when the proceedings under Section 8(4) and Statement under Section 9 have become final on dismissal of the writ petition filed by the original declarant. The petitioner cannot re-open the said proceedings as held by the Supreme Court in Omprakash Verma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others[2]. There is no dispute about original declarant filing the declaration as the subject-land was falling with the urban agglomeration of Warangal in the Master Plan and that the said land was earmarked for other than the agriculture purpose. The proceedings of the second respondent in Rc.No.A3/262/76, dated 4.9.1980 discloses that the draft statement together with notice under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued on 5.7.1979 calling upon the declarant to surrender an area of 22,452 sq.mtrs. of land. The draft statement was served on the declarant on 15.7.1979 and on declarant filing objections stating that the lands are agricultural lands and he has to maintain large family, the declarant was issued with another notice on 15.4.1980 to appear in person before the second respondent on 27.8.1980. Based on the records submitted by the declarant the issue that was framed by the second respondent was whether the land in Sy.Nos.82,83 and 87 of Waddepalli Village is situated outside Municipal limits and within the peripheral area, if so, deserves deletion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.323 M.A., dated 17.5.1977. Deciding the said issue, a finding was recorded that the entries made in the pahanies for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 in respect of Sy.Nos.82,83 and 87 would show that the lands are under cultivation and are to be exempted and they are accordingly exempted. After exempting the same, the land in Sy.No.854 measuring Ac.2.04 gts. wherein a house was constructed with door No.2-9-180, Sy.No.851 measuring Ac.2.04 gts., Sy.No.590 measuring Ac.1.01, Sy.No.589 measuring Ac.0.17 and Sy.No.83 measuring Ac.0.20 gts., which falls within the municipal limits was declared as other than non- agricultural purpose and the same was treated as vacant land and accordingly order was passed which has become final on dismissal of the writ petition filed by the declarant. Admittedly, the petitioner purchased the subject-land during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act and therefore, he cannot claim that he is entitled to a notice when the land was declared as vacant land nor can claim exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988 as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Omprakash Verma and others (2 supra) held that once the proceedings under the ULC Act were not challenged by the owners at any state as provided by the statute, and the notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act stating that the surplus land would be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and the same shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances was issued and allowed to become final, in the absence of any appeal being filed against such notification as provided under the Act by the declarants or when the declarant unsuccessfully challenged the final orders passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, statement under Section 9 or the notification under Section 10(3), the State acquires ownership on issuing notification under Section 10(3) of the Act (emphasis supplied). The owner has no further say in respect of the land which is vested in the State. Further since the panchanama has not been questioned, the petitioner being the subsequent purchaser cannot question the impugned proceedings. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 17, 2011 Tsr. [1] 2000 (4) ALD 596 [2] 2011 (1) ALD 75 (SC)