IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20358 of 2008 Between: 1 J.R. Jayanth, 8-2-310/R/12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2 G. Satyanarayana, S/o. Badrinath, 8-2-310/R, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3 M. Kousalya, W/o. Damodar Reddy, 8-2-310/R/5/8, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 4 Saritha Reddy, W/o. T. Krishna Sudhan Reddy, 8-2-310/R/20, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 5 Indira Venkatachalam, W/o. Venkatachalam, 8-2-310/R/8, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 6 T. Krishna Sudham Reddy, S/o. Late T. Goverdhan Reddy, 8-2-310/R/21, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 7 K. Rameshnadha Reddy, S/o. K. Murthyalu Reddy, 8-2-310/R/19, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Govt. of AP Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, 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 pass a direction more particularly one in the nature of a Mandamus declaring proposed action of the respondent authorities seeking applications under GO Ms.NO. 747 from the petitioner over the land in plot No. 3, Road No. 14, Banjara Hills, and to declare the proceedings initiate & U/s. 10 of Act as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and and pass Counsel for Petitioners: MR.SHAIKMASTANVALI Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioners purchased different plots of various sizes in Sy.No129 of Shaikpet village from one Sri Raghava Cooperative Housing Society. The society in turn purchased the land from Smt. B. Laxmi Devi. She filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). An order under Section 8(4) of the Act dated 9.03.1982 was passed to the effect that the said Laxmi Devi holds land to an extent of 8,162.12 sq. meters in excess of ceiling limits. A notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 17.11.2006. The petitioners state that they obtained permission and constructed houses on the plots purchased by them. The Special Officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, the second respondent herein, issued notice dated 7.08.2008 to the petitioners stating inter alia that they have to avail the benefit provided for under G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 29.06.2008 for regularization of surplus land. The petitioners state that their land did not vest in the government at all under different sub-sections of Section 10 of the Act, and the said Laxmi Devi died on 25.03.1990. They submit that the impugned notice as well as the proceedings earlier thereto, such as, notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act are untenable and nonest in the eye of law. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit is filed stating that they are not aware of the death of Laxmi Devi and in that view of the matter notice was issued in her name. The assertion of the petitioner that they are still in possession of the land is not disputed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Assignment. The Urban Land Ceiling Act aimed at bringing about a semblance of equality of the holding of urban property and which was sustained on the touch stone of Directive Principles of State policy, has, slowly become a golden mine, for the Government to collect the market value or equivalent thereto, from the persons, who are in possession of excess land. The Parliament repealed the enactment way back in the year 1999. The State of A.P. refused to adopt the same, and on the other hand treated the Act as a source of substantial revenue. The authorities under the Act became more active after it was repealed and every possible effort was made to squeeze as much money as possible from the individuals, who are said to be in possession of land, in excess of ceiling limits. Realizing that a land can vest in the Government only after the possession is vacant, notices were prepared under different sub- sections of Section 10 of the Act without even verifying whether the declarants are alive or not. Laxmi Devi, the declarant no doubt was held to be having lands in excess of ceiling limits. However, much before the possession of the land was taken, she died in 1990. Any notice could have been issued, only to her legal representatives. The notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued in the name of Laxmi Devi in the year 2003. Even assuming that the said notice is otherwise valid, the fact remains that the possession of the land was not assumed to the Government, by the time the said State Legislature had adopted the resolution, for enforcing the repealing Act. Obviously because the impugned notice is issued in cyclostyled form, these niceties were not examined at all. Once it emerges that the notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued in the name of a dead person, the inescapable conclusion is that no legal rights flow out of it. In addition to that the possession was not assumed to the Government and thereby the land is not covered by the repealed Act. Therefore, the writ petitioners are not under obligation to seek regularization of their lands. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 17th March, 2009 Js.