THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.: 1103; 1409 of 2009 And 1410 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: ( Per the Hon’ble Smt Justice T.Meena Kumari) 1. The present writ appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 18t h March 2009 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in W.P. Nos. 6485 & 10875 of 2006 and 20731 of 2008, which were filed challenging G.O.Ms.No. 1859 Revenue (UB.II) Department, dated 31-10-2005, notice dated 17.5.2006 issued by the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad proposing to conduct survey of the land in Survey No.23 of Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District and the Memo dated 11.9.2008 through which the Government required the petitioners in W.P. No. 20731 of 2008 to explain as to why G.O. Ms. No.1859 dated 31.10.2005 be not cancelled, respectively. Learned single Judge of this Court, through the impugned order passed in the above writ petitions, while disposing of the matters made certain directions that the G.O does not confer any additional force or strength in favour of unofficial respondents, since the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 is repealed, it is not necessary for the Government to proceed with the enquiry contemplated through its memo dt.11.9.2008. Learned Judge also gave liberty to the parties to seek redressal from the concerned courts of law. 2. Since all the appeals arise out of a common order and the dispute involved in all these appeals is connected with each other, they are being disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the Cat Education Society (petitioner in WP No. 6485/06) is arrayed as Society, the private parties are arrayed as unofficial respondents and the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling (ULI) Department, Hyderabad are is arrayed as official respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the common order are as follows: The land in Survey No. 23 of Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to an extent of Ac 20.28 gts, held by one Sri Anil Kumar Kamdar. A woman, by name Lingamma, also claimed that she purchased a part of that land. Since the land is within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) was filed. Fairly large extent thereof was declared as surplus in an order under Section 8(4) of the Act. The Society purchased an extent of Ac 1.00 of land in Survey No.23, through a sale deed, dated 2.5.2001. Sri Anil Kumar Kamdar has also sold part of the land in favour of Sri U Sivarama Raju and B Gopal Krishna in the year 1989. They, in turn, sold the same in favour of Dega Vishnuvardhan Reddy and family in the year 2001. Respondents 3 to 7 (unofficial respondents) are said to have purchased part of the said property in the year 2002. 4. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 455 Revenue (U.C.I) Department, dated 29.07.2002 providing for regularization of excess urban land, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner on the one hand, and respondents 3 to 7 on the other, have submitted applications before the authorities concerned seeking regularization of the land said to be in their respective possession. Through G.O.Ms.No. 1859, dated 31.10.2005, the first respondent regularized/allotted the excess land in favour of respondents 3 to 7. 5. The petitioner raised dispute before the first respondent. It was alleged that the sale in favour of respondents 3 to 7 is subsequent in point of time and there was no justification in regularizing the land in their favour. Some dispute arose as to the location of the land also. It was in this context that the office of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, issued notice, dated 17.5.2006, proposing to conduct survey. Thereafter, the government issued memo dated 11.09.2008 proposing to cancel G.O.Ms.No.1859, dated 31.10.2005 on the ground that it was procured through misrepresentation and by playing fraud. 6. The contention of the Society before the learned single Judge was two fold, viz., that the unofficial respondents obtained the impugned G.O by playing misrepresentation and fraud and secondly since the society is the first purchaser of the land, the regularization ought to have been made in their favour instead of the unofficial respondents and therefore the unofficial respondents cannot question the show cause notice given by the authorities and they are not entitled for any exemption from conducting survey of the land. 7. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment, before the learned single Judge, supported the action taken by the authorities in issuing memo proposing to cancel the impugned G.O as well as the notice for conducting survey of the land in dispute. 8. Before the learned single Judge, it was the case of the un- official respondents that since the Act itself was repealed there was no basis for the issuance of show cause notice, much less, for causing survey and that the G.O does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and therefore the proposed action by the authorities is liable to be declared as unjust. 9. The learned single Judge after hearing the respective counsel representing the different parties disposed of the three writ petitions holdings that (a) G.O.Ms.No.1859, dated 31-10-2005 does not, by itself, confer any additional force or strength to the title of respondents 3 to 7; (b) in view of the fact that the Act itself is repealed, it is no longer permissible or at any rate, necessary for the Government to proceed with the enquiry contemplated through Memo, dated 11.9.2008 and (c) it shall be open to the parties to resolve their dispute by approaching proper forum including the one for survey of the land and accordingly, the survey proposed through notice, dated 17.5.2006, is held untenable. The parties shall be entitled to seek redressal from the concerned Courts of law. Aggrieved against the said findings, the present writ appeals have been preferred. 10. Heard learned counsel representing the respective parties. 11. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has submitted copies of the title deeds procured by their parties before this court. 12. A perusal of the order under appeal would reveal that upon considering the material placed before the court and on hearing the arguments submitted on behalf of respective parties, the learned single Judge observed that the entire dispute has assumed a different dimension in view of the repeal of the Act itself and therefore it hardly needs any mention that the process of regularization, which is referable to Section 23 of the Act, does not confer any title nor does it water down an existing one and that the title of the parties over the land in question has to be decided on the basis of the attendant facts and not on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1859, dated 31.10.2005, and disposed of the writ petitions with the directions as stated supra. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed in the year 1999 so far as to Haryana & Punjab is concerned and in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repealing Act, 1999 came into force w.e.f. 27.3.2008 by virtue of the Notification issued under GO Ms. No. 603, dated 22-4-2008. In view of the same, the learned single Judge rightly observed that since the Act itself is repealed it is no longer permissible or necessary for the Government to proceed with the enquiry. Though the learned counsel for the respondents has produced the copies of sale deeds’ showing the title of the unofficial respondents over the land in question, the dispute involved herein has to be decided based on factual aspects involving disputed questions of facts reflected in the respective sale deeds. Such disputed questions of facts are to be adjudicated before an appropriate forum but not under the writ jurisdiction. Further, the observations made by the learned single judge that since the Act itself is repealed, it is not necessary for the government to proceed with the enquiry as contemplated by it through Memo dated 11-9-2008 and that the G.O.Ms.No. 1859, dated 31-10-2005, does not confer any additional force or strength to the title of the parties, need no interference at this stage. No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned common order of the learned single Judge. The parties are at liberty to agitate their rights before the appropriate forum. The civil suit said to be pending between the parties of the litigation, if any, shall be adjudicated based on the merits of the same, uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made by the learned single Judge or in this judgment. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the order under appeal and therefore we dismiss all these three appeals confirming the common order of the learned single Judge. 14. Accordingly these writ appeals are dismissed but without costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Dt. 05.03.2010 kvrk THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.: 1103; 1409 of 2009 And 1410 of 2009 (Common Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Smt. Justice T Meena Kumari) 05th March 2010