THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10542 of 2010 April 30, 2010 Between: Smt.M.Savitri Devi, W/o.M.Chandrasekhar Rao … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10542 of 2010 ORDER: The writ petition is filed by sole petitioner seeking the following reliefs. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent authority in issuing the following proceedings viz., (a) Rc.No.J/6142/76 & 6146/76, dated 22.3.1995 (Orders under section 8(4) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 on the file of 2nd respondent). (b) Final statement issued under Section 9 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 relating file Nos.B2/6142/76 and B2/6146/76 on the file of 2nd respondent including notification under section 10(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and the notification under section 10(3) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. (c) Notice under section 10(5) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, dated 06.11.2002. (d) Proceedings under section 10(6) in relation to proceedings No.J1/6142, 6146/76 as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provision of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The fact of the matter as alleged is as follows. The land admeasuring Acs.55.37 guntas in survey Nos.117, 118, 139 and 143 situated at Badangpet Village of Saroornagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District was originally owned by Penta Reddy. He died on 18.2.1987 leaving behind his wife, Shankaramma, son, Somi Reddy, daughters – Aparna and Archana; and grandson Bhaskar Reddy. Petitioner allegedly purchased land admeasuring Acs.0.39 guntas in survey No.139 from Somi Reddy and his son, Bhaskar Reddy, under registered sale deed dated 27.4.1996. When respondents 2 and 3 along with their staff allegedly visited petitioner’s property in February 2010 and informed that the land is declared as excess vacant land under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act), petitioner filed instant writ petition alleging that the land is not vacant land, that it falls under the exception to Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act and that no notice was issued to petitioner at the stage of enquiry or at the stage of taking possession. Petitioner admitted the following facts. Penta Reddy and his son, Somi Reddy, filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, after ULC Act came into force though allegedly subject land is agricultural land and not covered under the Act. After death of Penta Reddy, Shankaramma and Somi Reddy succeeded to the property and got their names mutated in the revenue records. Second respondent issued final statement under Section 8(4) of the Act vide RC.No.J/6142 and 6146 of 1976, dated 22.3.1995. Petitioner alleges that declarants were not issued notice under Section 8(1) of the Act inviting objections and draft statement and, therefore, the subsequent proceedings are void. The counsel for petitioner vehemently reiterated various contentions raised in the writ petition. Nonetheless this Court is convinced that the writ petition is frivolous and vexatious. When the declaration was filed in 1976 by the father and son and it was finalized on 22.3.1995 by issue of final statement by second respondent, it is rather curious that petitioner purchased the land, which is registered as surplus under registered sale deed. When the sale itself is void by reason of Section 5(1) of the Act, petitioner cannot be said to have any right which can be enforced in a writ petition. Her remedies are elsewhere and approaching this Court after long lapse of time would lead to inference that the petitioner herself did not exercise due diligence in protecting her rights. Probably after the repeal of ULC Act, which has also been made applicable to Government of Andhra Pradesh in 2008, petitioner got emboldened and filed the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore liable to be rejected in limine. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 30, 2010 YS