IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20915 of 2004 Between: G.Prem Kumar … Petitioner And The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20915 of 2004 Order: Petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to call for the records in file No.190/95 pertaining to the order, dated 02.07.2004, passed by the second respondent-Commissioner, confirming the order, dated 26.05.1995, passed in file No.H2/13245/76 by the first respondent and to set aside both the orders by declaring them as illegal and contrary to the provisions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Petitioner is an employee of State Bank of Hyderabad and a member of State Bank of Hyderabad Co-operative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’). The Society purchased an extent of 13,998 square metres from the original owners viz., Vijaya Reddy and Visweswara Reddy in survey Nos.87 to 92 of Gaganmahal village vide registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.1721/72, 1722/72, 1723/72, 1741/72, 1742/72, dated 30.03.1972. Thereafter it has obtained a lay out approval vide proceedings No.29/layout/01.07.1972, dated 22.01.1973, and sold plot bearing No.15, admeasuring 299 square yards to the petitioner and executed a registered sale deed on 14.02.1985. It is stated that ever since the delivery of possession of the said plot, the petitioner has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same and constructed a residential house thereon. While things stood thus, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad-respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (for brevity, “the Act’) stating that he was in possession of an extent of 127.05 square metres of land, which was found to be excess in the declaration filed by Smt.Vijaya Reddy and asked him to surrender/deliver possession of the same to the Deputy Tahsildar. Questioning the validity of the said notice, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 33 of the Act before the second respondent. The appellate authority also rejected the appeal of the petitioner by order, dated 02.07.2004, issued in appeal No.190 of 1995. Hence, this writ petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plot, which is allotted to the petitioner, is covered by approved layout obtained by the Society, out of the land purchased by the Society admeasuring 13,998 square metres from its original owners viz., Vijaya Reddy and Visweswara Reddy in survey Nos.87 to 92 of Gaganmahal village vide registered sale deed, dated 30.03.1972. It is the case of the petitioner that transfer was effected in favour of the Society prior to the Act came to be enforced in the State of Andhra Pradesh; as such the plot allotted to the petitioner cannot be treated as an excess land in the declaration filed by Viajya Reddy, who was the vendor of the land sold to the Society. Further, it is contended that even without examining such pleas, in the appeal preferred under section 33 of the Act, the Commissioner misconstrued the facts and basing on the statements said to have been made by Smt.Vijaya Reddy who is the original owner, that she has cancelled the agreement of sale entered into with one M/s.Bhanu Co-operative Housing society, has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the land which is subject matter of agreement of sale entered by Smt.Vijaya Reddy in favour of M/s.Bhanu Co- operative Housing Society is nothing to do with the claim of the petitioner, as the land which was sold to the Society was in the year 1972 and it was a registered sale deed. It is submitted that the appellate authority did not consider the fact that the land sold to Society was not treated as an excess land under the Act; therefore, petitioner cannot be deprived of the possession pursuant to a notice issued under Section 10(5) of the Act. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit with reference to the purchase of the land admeasuring 13,998 square metres by the Society, it is stated that it is not within the knowledge of the respondents. It is further stated that Smt.Vijaya Reddy, who filed declaration, was found to be in possession of surplus lands in Gaganmahal and Rasulpura villages. It was found that the petitioner was in occupation of 194 square metres of surplus land, which was determined as against the declaration filed by Vijaya Reddy and the impugned notice was issued. With reference to the aforesaid counter affidavit, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that as much as the petitioner has been in possession of the excess land, there is no illegality in the notice, dated 26.05.1995, issued by the Special Officer and Competent Authority and also to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner, ULC. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I have also perused the order passed by the appellate authority and the notice issued by the Special Officer and the various sale deeds relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the material papers, it is clear that an extent of 13998 square metres covered by survey Nos.87 to 92 of Gaganmahal Village was sold by registered sale deed executed on 30.03.1972 in favour of the Society. It is the case of the petitioner that having purchased the said land, the Society has obtained approval of lay out and carved the said land into residential sites and allotted one such site admeasuring 299 square yards in plot No.15 to the petitioner. When the land admeasuring 13998 square metres was sold by Smt.Vijaya Reddy on 30.03.1972 i.e., much prior to the notification of the proceedings by the Act, the land which is sold to the Society cannot be declared as an excess on the declaration filed by Smt.Vijaya Reddy. By virtue of the registered sale deed executed in favour of Society, Smt.Vijaya Reddy and Visweswara Reddy had no title to the extent of the land admeasuring 13998 square metres, which was sold in favour of society. In that view of the matter on the ground that this piece of land admeasuring 127.05 square metres was found to be in excess in the declaration filed by Smt.Vijaya Reddy, the petitioner cannot be deprived of that piece of land, which is allotted by the Society having purchased the same by registered sale deed, much prior to the enforcement of the Act. From a perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, it is clear that the appellate authority has mistaken the facts and rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner never claimed from M/s.Bhanu Co-operative Housing Society. On the ground that the agreement of sale, dated 17.06.1982, is stated to have been executed by Smt.Vijaya Reddy in favour of Bhanu Co- operative Housing society, the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The petitioner is claiming his plot from SBH Co-operative Housing Society, but not from M/s.Bhanu Co-operative housing society. Even assuming that the agreement entered into with M/s.Bhanu co-operative housing society by Smt.Vijaya Reddy is cancelled, that will not have any effect and bearing on the land, which is transferred to SBH Employees Co-operative Housing Society by way of registered sale deed, dated 30.03.1972. Basing on the agreement of sale said to have been entered in favour of Bhanu Co-operative housing society, by recording finding that it will not confer any title on the vendor of the petitioner; the appellate authority has erroneously rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. When the land was transferred by way of registered sale deed, a copy of which is also placed on record, there is no reason to deprive the plot of the petitioner on the plea that some of the portion of the land was found excess in the declaration filed by Smt.Vijaya Reddy. As the petitioner was not party in any of the proceedings, if any orders are passed declaring the surplus land in the declaration filed by Smt.Vijaya Reddy, such order will not bind him and based on such order the petitioner cannot be deprived of the land which is allotted to him by the Society. For the aforesaid reasons, I find merit in this writ petition to quash the notice, dated 26.05.1995 as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 02.07.2004 The Writ Petition is allowed. The notice dated 26.051995, and the order of the appellate authority, dated 02.07.2004, are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) January 27, 2011 lmv