THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL Nos. 165, 167 and 169 of 2010 Dated: 28-4-2011 Between The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary (Revenue) UC-II Department, Urban Land Ceiling, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad …Appellant And M/s Associated Cement Company Ltd. rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder Sri Gopalakrishna Ramesh and others. …Respondents Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard the learned Advocate General represented by Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy for the appellants and Sri Badri Premnath, learned counsel for the non-official respondents in all the appeals. These appeals by the State are directed against the common judgment dated 30-12-2009 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.Nos. 18093 of 2008, 12683 and 19759 of 2009. The respective non-official respondents in these appeals have filed the writ petition challenging the notice dated 14-3-2008 issued by the Competent Authority under the provisions of Section 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the 1976 Act’) in W.P.No. 18093 of 2008; a declaration that G.O.Ms.No. 969 Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 2-8-2008 issued by the State is illegal (in W.P.No. 12683 of 2009); and challenging the order dated 20-9-2005 of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, the appellate authority under the 1976 Act confirming the orders of the Special Officer and Competent Authority dated 12-9-1995 declaring the surplus holding of the declarant. The writ petitions were allowed declaring the notice dated 14-3-2008 illegal for being in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act; and that the order of the appellate authority dated 20-9-2005 confirming the order of the primary authority and the order of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 969, dated 2-8-2008, are illegal and unsustainable. The relevant chronology of facts is that on 27-11-1993 one of the writ petitioners, the Associated Cement Company Ltd., a company registered under the Registration Act, 1956 and pursuing the business of manufacture of cement, filed a declaration under Section 6 of the 1976 Act before the Competent Authority for computation of its holding under the provisions of the said Act. On 28-6-1995 a draft statement was prepared by the Competent Authority calling for the declarant’s objections, which were filed on 27-7-1995. A personal hearing was accorded to the declarant on 20-8-1995 and on 12-9-1995 a final order under Section 8 (4) and the statement under Section 9 were issued declaring specified extent of land to be surplus holding and liable for vestiture in the State under the provisions of 1976 Act (in the view we are taking in the appeals, it is not necessary to set out the extents of excess holding declared by the Competent Authority in the proceedings dated 12-9-1995). On 9-11-1995 the declarant preferred an appeal under Section 33. On 26-6-1998 a notification under Section 10(1) of the 1976 Act was drawn up and was published in the A.P. Gazette on 23-7-1998. The declaration under Section 10(3) followed on 22-8-2001. This was published in the Gazette on 29-8-2001. On 20-9- 2005 the appeal preferred by the declarant was dismissed by the appellate authority and on 2-5-2007 the declarant preferred a revision to the Government under Section 34 of the 1976 Act. According to the State and the Competent Authority a notice under Section 10 (5) was issued on 14-3-2008 wherein the declarant was directed to surrender the excess land so declared by the Competent Authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, by 20-3- 2008 i.e., within less than 30 days from the apparent date of issue of the Section 10 (5) notice, contrary to the specific legislative prescription in Section 10 (5) that the declarant/the excess land holder should be permitted 30 days time to surrender the land notified, failing which coercive process under the 1976 Act would be liable to be initiated. On 25-3-2008 possession of the land was resumed by the State from the declarant pursuant to the notice apparently issued on 14-3-2008. It requires to be noticed that on 5-2-2008 the Special Officer and Competent Authority addressed the Principal Secretary to the State Government-the appellant herein stating clearly that in respect of the declaration filed by the ACC under Section 6 (1) of the 1976 Act, the declarant has been declared as a surplus land holder in an extent of 31,836.50 Sq. meters and the file has been processed up to the 10(3) stage and that the company is however in possession of only 23,055.47 Sq. meters. How the Competent Authority addressed a letter to the State Government on 5-2-2008 that the issue regarding the excess land held by the company was processed up to 10(3) stage when the declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act is asserted to havebeen issued on 22-8-2001 was published in the Gazette on 22-8- 2001 is a mystery that neither the Competent Authority nor the State cares to unravel. Be that as it may. The learned Single Judge has held that in view of the specific provision in Section 10 (5) of the 1976 Act that a declarant is entitled to deliver possession of the excess land within 30 days from the date of service of the notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act and since the notice dated 14-3-2008 has directed the declarant to surrender the land by 20-3-2008, the notice is invalid and the possession of the land assumed under such defective notice is also invalid and on this premise allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant substantively challenging the notice dated 14-3-2008, being W.P.No. 18093 of 2008. It is the synoptic submission at the Bar by the learned counsel for the respective parties that the outcome in W.P.Nos. 12683 and 19759 of 2009 are dependent on W.P.No. 18093 of 2008. Since Section 10(5) clearly mandates a 30 days period for a declarant to deliver possession of the excess land in his possession to the State Government or to any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf and enables the Competent Authority to initiate coercive steps for taking possession of the vacant land only thereafter vide sub-Section 6 of Section 10 of the 1976 Act, it is clear on a true and fair construction of provisions of Section 10(5) that the period of 30 days specified is mandatory, particularly as it provides an opportunity to the excess land holder to pursue appropriate remedies as available in law to safe-guard his interest in the property by assailing proceedings passed by the Competent Authority or the appellate authority, as the case may be. On this analysis, the conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge is impeccable and warrants no interference in the appeals. Consequently, W.A.No. 165 of 2010 arising from the judgment in W.P.No. 18093 of 2008 is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Since Writ Appeal Nos. 167 and 169 of 2010 arise out of the judgment in W.P.Nos. 12683 and 19759 of 2009, which are against the orders consequent and dependent on the validity of the notice dated 14-3-2008, these appeals-W.A.Nos. 167 and 169 of 2009 are also liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 28th April, 2011 ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J GRR