IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 508 of 2003 Between: 1 P. Venkata Ramana, S/o late Suryanarayana, R/o Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 M. Papa Rao, S/o. Late Papaiah, R/o Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Smt. N. Lakshmikantham, W/o hari Karihna Murthy, R/o Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Smt. P. Godavari, W/o. Venkatappadu, R/o. Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Pydi Raju, S/o. narasimhulu, R/o Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Ceilings, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT 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 to call for the records contained in ULC. Appeal No. VSP/29/98, dated 28-3-2001 and C.C. No. 7657/76-C2, dated 28-1- 1998 by issuing a Writ of quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order or direction and declare that the petitioners are not surplus holders under the provisions of Act 33 of 1976; and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.R.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND CEILING The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 508 of 2003 11-02-2009 Oral Order: The five (5) petitioners challenge the order dated 28- 03-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-cum-Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad in ULC Appeal No. VSP/29/98 rejecting their appeal. There is an extended litigative saga preceding the impugned order of the appellate authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners claim to have purchased 500 square yards each of urban land in survey No.2/1 of Madhavadhara village, Visakhapatnam district from Sanapala Sanyasayya and five others in 1971 under agreements of sale. This land was proposed for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 during 1978-79. The original owners and others aggrieved by the acquisition filed W.P.No.6491 of 1979 and batch challenging the land acquisition. By the judgment dated 22-02-1982 the batch of writ petitions was allowed. Thereagainst the State preferred W.A.No. 09 of 1983, which is stated to have been dismissed on 15-07-1983. The State unsuccessfully canvassed the invalidation of the land acquisition before the Supreme Court in C.A.No. 807 of 1994, which was dismissed on 30-03-1995. After the culmination of the land acquisition litigatio, the writ petitioners filed declarations under the provisions of the Act in respect of the properties they claimed to have purchased under agreements of sale from the original vendors. These declarations were rejected in limini on the ground that the vendors had already filed declarations and had been declared as surplus holders of urban land. Aggrieved by the rejection of the declarations in limini, the petitioners filed W.P.No.5237 of 1996. By the judgment of this Court dated 05-07-1996 rejection of the petitioners’ declaration under the Act was quashed and enabling the petitioners to file fresh declarations, which they did. The competent authority by the order dated 28- 01-1998 went into the issue of the petitioners’ declaration and rejected the same on merits holding that the petitioners have no right or title over the property in survey No. 2/1, Madhavadhara village, Vishakapatnam District. The competent authority held that the entire land of an extent of Ac.06-30 cents in survey No. 2/1, Madhavadhara village was declared as surplus and allotted to the Vishakapatnam Urban Development Authority in G.O.Ms.No.363 Revenue Department dated 26-04-1991. The revenue records continued to disclose that these lands stand registered in the name of original vendor – Sanapala Seethanna. A field inspection by the competent authority also disclosed no signs of occupation or possession by the petitioners. On a conclave of these factual observations the competent authority rejected the petitioners’ claim for title to the property in question and rejected their declarations. Aggrieved thereby they filed appeals before the Commissioner under Section 33 of the Act. The Commissioner concurred with the competent authority and found that the agreements filed by the petitioners in support of their claim of title to the property are concocted instruments for the purpose of avoiding the provisions of the Act. As the transfer of the title has not occured in favour of the petitioners as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the petitioners do not acquire title to the property, held the appellate Commissioner. This Court discerns no infirmity either in the order of the competent authority dated 28-01-1998 or the order of the appellate authority dated 28-03-2001 confirming the orders of the competent authority, warranting interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, no costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 11-02-2009 Pvks