HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.4121, 4141, 4144 and 5776 of 2006 W.P.No.4121 of 2006 Between: K. Anjana Devi & 45 others … Petitioners AND Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. D. Prakash Reddy for Mr. C.V. Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1to3: Advocate General Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Mr. A.Saran, Addl. Solicitor General W.P.No.4141 of 2006 Between: Ahmed Abdul Aziz & 14 others … Petitioners AND Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. B.Adinarayana Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1to3: Advocate General Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Mr. G.E.Vaharvati, Solicitor General of India W.P.No.4144 of 2006 Between: Omprakash Verma & 43 others … Petitioners AND Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. K.Rajendra Chowdary Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1to3: Advocate General Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Mr. G.E.Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India W.P.No.5776 of 2006 Between: Chanakyapuri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. … Petitioner AND Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : None Counsel for the Respondents : None Dated: January 17, 2006 : COMMON ORDER : PER C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J The four writ petitions involve common issues. Hence, they are being disposed of by a common order. Writ Petition No.4121 of 2006 has been filed by Smt. K. Anjana Devi and 45 others, who claim to be the purchasers of small extent of land forming part of Survey No.83 of Raidurg (Panmaktha) village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They claim to have purchased the said extents from the General Power of Attorney holder of the original landowners (hereinafter referred to as declarants). W.P.No.4144 of 2006 has been filed by Omprakash Verma and 43 others, who also claim to be purchasers of small extent of land forming part of Survey No.83 of Raidurg (Panmaktha) Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the said General Power of Attorney. W.P.No.4141 of 2006 has been filed by Ahmed Abdul Aziz and 14 others, who claim to be the owners of the land of an extent of Acs.526.07 guntas in Survey No.83 of Raidurg (Panmaktha) Village, Serilingampally Mandl, Rangareddy District (declarants). W.P.No.5776 of 2006 has been filed by the Chanakyapuri Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad, which claims to be the holder of Agreement of Sale dated 09.08.1974 allegedly executed by the G.P.A. holder of the owners of the land in Survey No.83 of Raidurg (Panmaktha) Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. The petitioners have questioned the validity of G.O.Ms.No.161, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 13.02.2006 and prayed for quashing of the same with a direction to the official respondents to consider their claim for grant of exemption under various Government Orders viz., G.O.Ms.No.733, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 31.10.1988 as clarified in G.O.Ms.No.217, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 18.04.2000, G.O.Ms.No.455, Revenue (UC-I) Department, dated 29.07.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.456, Revenue (UC-I) Department, dated 29.07.2002. FACTS: The factual matrix of these cases can be broadly placed into four categories viz., (1) Proceedings under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 (for short “the 1973 Act”), (2) Proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 (for short “the 1976 Act”), (3) the previous litigation and (4) the present writ petitions. (1) PROCEEDINGS UNDER 1973 ACT:- Petitioners in W.P.No.4141 of 2006 filed declarations on 11.04.1975 under Section 8(1) of the 1973 Act. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad (West) (for short “the Tribunal”) passed an order dated 02.06.1976 in C.C.No.632/W/75 holding that Sri Ahmed Abdul Aziz, S/o. Janab Mohammed Rukmuddin Ahmed was having excess land equivalent to 0.4612 standard holdings. Another order was passed by the Tribunal on 16.06.1976 holding that Sri Md. Rukmuddin Ahmed, S/o. Nawab Aziz Jung held excess land equivalent to 1.191 standard holdings. In furtherance of those orders, the possession of the excess land was taken by the State. On 16.07.1980, Sri A.Ramaswamy, G.P.A. holder of the declarants filed a petition before the Lands Reforms Tribunal inter alia stating that after surrendering the excess land of an extent of Acs.99-32 cents, the authorities under the 1976 Act, after holding enquiry, held that the entire area of Acs.525-31 cents held by the 12 declarants in Sy.No.83 of Raidurg Village is vacant land liable to be taken over under the provisions of the 1976 Act and that in view of the law declared by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh that where the provisions of the 1976 Act are applied in respect of any land treated as vacant land, the same land should be treated as agricultural land. In the said petition, an unequivocal statement was made that since the land in Sy.No.83 was treated as vacant land under the provisions of the 1976 Act, the provisions of the 1973 Act are not applicable. It was therefore requested in the said petition to release the extent of Ac.99-32 cents of land to the land owners immediately. The said request having been rejected by the Tribunal on 19.04.1982, four appeals viz., LRA.Nos.6/83, 15/83, 16/83 and 45/83 were filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy. The appeals were disposed of together by the appellate tribunal vide its order dated 22.09.1984. The appellate tribunal held that in the absence of any material produced, it cannot be positively held that the lands are to be treated as vacant lands falling under the 1976 Act and that the said issue cannot be decided in the said appeals straight away. The appellate tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeals and remanded the matters to the Land Reforms Tribunal for fresh disposal. After remand, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 10.11.1987, while accepting the plea of the declarants that the entire land was vacant land falling under the provisions of the 1976 Act, directed that the extent of Acs.99-17 cents of land in Sy.No.83 shall revert back to the land owners. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division was requested to deliver back the possession of the said lands to the declarants. Accordingly, on 25.04.1990, the possession of the said extent of land was delivered to the declarants through their G.P.A., Sri A.Ramaswamy under a panchanama. (2) PROCEEDINGS UNDER 1976 ACT:- Individual statements in Form-I were filed on behalf of the owners of the land under Section 6(1) of the 1976 Act by the G.P.A. holder wherein the land in dispute was described as “vacant land”. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, issued draft statements under Sections 8(1) and 8(3) of the 1976 Act on 01.07.1977 and 11.11.1977 respectively calling for objections. No objections were filed by the declarants or any other person interested in the land. Thereafter, the final statement in Form-III under Section 9 of the 1976 Act was issued on 6-12-1979. This was followed by a publication of notices under Section 10(1) in A.P. Gazette No.19 on 16.01.1980. Notices to surrender the excess land were published in official Gazette No.31 Part-I Extraordinary dated 30.01.1980. In the meanwhile, the GPA of the declarants filed application under Section 20 (1)(a) of the 1976 Act. He pleaded that the land owners through their G.P.A. entered into an agreement on 09.08.1974 with M/s. Chanakyapuri Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad for alienation of 16,18,800 square meters in Sy.No.83 of Raidurg and received an amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash towards earnest money on the date of the agreement and that in pursuance of the said agreement, the said society has paid an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- in ten instalments towards part performance of the agreement of sale before the commencement of the 1976 Act out of the total amount of Rs.3,32,900/- paid at the time of making exemption application. It was also pleaded in the exemption application that the layout was sanctioned by the Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Raidurg in the year 1975. After finalization of the surplus area case, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.391, Municipal Administration, dated 23.06.1980 revising the master plan for Hyderabad urban area with effect from 29.09.1980. State Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.5013, Revenue, dated 19.12.1980, inter alia, allotting the surplus land of the land owners admeasuring 18,94,472 square meters to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. Notification under Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act was published on 24.01.1981 declaring that the property is deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from January, 1981. As a sequel to this, the State Government vide its order dated 21-2-1981 rejected the application filed by the GPA of the land owners under Section 20 (1). Thereafter, on 26.02.1981, a notification under Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act was issued calling upon the G.P.A. to deliver the possession of the land before 5th of March 1981. (3) PREVIOUS LITIGATION:- Feeling aggrieved by the said rejection of exemption, the Chanakyapuri Cooperative Housing Society Limited (for short “the society”), the petitioner in W.P.No.5776 of 2006, filed W.P.No.1290 of 1981, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 16-7-1983. The learned Single Judge held that the agreement of sale held by the said society was in violation of Section 5 of A.P. Vacant Land in Urban Areas (Prohibition and Violation) Act, 1972 and that the society did not have a valid title. The learned Single Judge further held that the possession of the society is wholly unlawful and can neither be recognized nor protected in law. Writ Appeal No.649 of 1983 preferred by the society was dismissed by the Division Bench on 13-8-1983 with an observation that the land owners and the appellant should have filed appeal against the rejection of application filed under Section 20 (1) of the 1976 Act. Thereafter, the society filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The same was dismissed on 1-12-1992. Writ Petition No.16792 of 1992 filed by the society against the order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue was summarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge and Writ Appeal No.806 of 1993 filed against that order was dismissed by the Division Bench on 1-10-1993. SLP Nos.5739 and 5740 filed against the order of the Division Bench were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28-3-2001. In the meanwhile, possession of the entire excess land was handed over to Mandal Revenue Officer, Sharlingampally, Ranga Reddy District. One K.Ashok Rao and 70 others claiming to be the purchasers of small extents of the surplus land in dispute filed W.P.No.18385 of 1993 seeking several reliefs including the one for declaration that the land in Sy.No.83 of Raidurg village is neither urban land nor vacant land within the meaning of the 1976 Act and that the same is not liable for determination or being dealt with under the provisions of the said Act and also for a declaration that all the proceedings taken under the 1976 Act were void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge relied on the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court i n SMT. ATHIA MOHAMMADI BEGUM v. STATE OF U.P.[1] and quashed the proceedings held under the 1976 Act by observing that till 29.09.1980 when the revised master plan came into operation, the disputed land was an agricultural land. However, liberty was given to the respondents to take further action in accordance with law. Writ Petition No.238 of 1994 filed by another set of 116 persons claiming to be purchasers of small extents of surplus land was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 6-10-1994 in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.18385 of 1993. Writ Appeal Nos.918 and 1220 of 1994 preferred against the aforementioned orders of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench. The State Government challenged the orders and judgments of the Single and Division Benches by filing petitions to Special Leave for Appeal before the Supreme Court. After grant of leave, the same were registered as Civil Appeal Nos.3813 of 1996 and 7239 of 2001. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and held that the judgment of SMT. ATHIA MOHAMMADI BEGUM (supra) does not lay down correct law. (4) PRESENT WRIT PETITIONS:- The declarants (land owners), who did not challenge the rejection of exemption application filed by society and the proceedings initiated under the 1976 Act and orders passed therein, came on the scene in November 2003 when they made representation dated 28-11- 2003 on their own behalf and also on behalf of the purchasers to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad for recomputation of their holding as on 23-6-1980 i.e. the day on which the revised Master Plan was published. They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF A.P. v. AUDIKESAVA REDDY[2], judgment dated 22-11-2002 passed in O.S.No.71 of 2001 whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Collector, Hyderabad claiming the land in dispute as government land and G.O.Ms.No.733 Revenue (UC-II) Department dated 31.10.1988 as clarified in G.O.Ms.No.289 MA & UD Department dated 01.06.1989 read with G.O.Ms.No.217, Revenue (UC-II) Department dated 18.04.2000. The declarants also averred that in the event of there being any surplus land, they will retain the same by paying compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos.455/456, Revenue (UC-I) Department dated 29.07.2002. A similar representation was made to the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (UC-II) Department. However, neither of the authorities responded to the representation of the declarants. On its part, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.161, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 13.02.2006 allotting the excess of land of Acs.424-13 guntas in Sy.No.83 of Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mangal, Ranga Reddy District to A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad for utilizing the same for setting up integrated I.T. park project. It is this G.O., which has been challenged in the writ petitions. THE ARGUMENTS: Shri K.Rajendra Chowdary, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4144 of 2006, Shri D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4121 of 2006 and Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4141 of 2006 argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF A.P. v. AUDIKESAVA REDDY (supra) does not have the effect of nullifying the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.18385 of 1993 and 238 of 1994 and by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.918 and 1220 of 1994 because three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with purely legal issue referred by the two Judges Bench and did not go into the factual matrix of the appeals. They submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.18385 and 238 of 1994, which were confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.918 and 1220 of 1994 were not reversed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the same are binding on the respondents and they are bound to decide the surplus area case of the land owners afresh under the 1976 Act by taking into consideration the situation as on the date of enforcement of revised master plan i.e. 29-9-1980. Learned counsel emphasized that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench had unequivocally held that the land in dispute continued to be an agriculture land and as this finding has not been reversed by the Supreme Court in STATE OF A.P. v. AUDIKESAVA REDDY (supra), the surplus area case of the land owners is required to be decided afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in KUNHAYAMMED v STATE OF KERALA[3] to contend that since the only ‘lis’ disposed of by the Supreme Court in STATE OF A.P. v. AUDIKESAVA REDDY (supra) pertains to the correctness or otherwise of the ratio in ATHIA MOHAMMADI BEGUM (supra), the entire judgment of this Court cannot be said to have got merged in the judgment in STATE OF A.P. v. AUDIKESAVA REDDY (supra). Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF U.P. v SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED[4] to contend that what was merged in the appellate judgment of the Supreme Court is only the finding of the Division Benches that the master plan existing on the date of commencement of the Act alone is relevant for the purpose of determination of the nature of the land. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION v STATE OF KARNATAKA[5] wherein it was held that the ratio decidendi of the judgment has to be found out only on reading the entire judgment and the ratio has to be culled out in the context of what is set out in the judgment and not by reading a line here and there from the judgment. Shri K. Rajendra Chowdary submitted that the 1976 Act became applicable to Survey No.83 only with effect from 29.09.1980 when the amended master plan came into force and, therefore, any determination of the surplus land on the basis of declarations filed by the owners under a mistaken impression under Section 6(1) of the Act in the year 1976 and the preparation of draft statement under Section 8(1), publication of final statement under Section 9, publication of notification under Section 10(3) purporting to vest the land in the State and consequent notices under Sections 10(5) and (6) of the Act are without jurisdiction and, therefore, void. Learned counsel then argued that the statement contained in para 3 of G.O.Ms.No.161 that the land is deemed to have been vested in the State under Section 10 (3) is incorrect and, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court in STATE OF A.P. v. AUDIKESAVA REDDY (supra), the competent authority is duty bound to compute the excess land afresh in accordance with law and till that is done, the land comprised in Survey No.83 cannot be treated as having got vested in the State Government. Learned counsel further argued that the State Government in its appeals before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court neither raised the contentions regarding correctness or otherwise of the findings of the High Court nor invited the Court to pronounce any judgment on these findings. According to the learned counsel, the finding recorded by the two Division Benches of this Court attained finality and, therefore, are binding on the State Government and its competent authority and they cannot now be permitted to re-agitate the same questions again in these writ petitions. According to the learned counsel, as the land in dispute became “vacant land” with effect from 29.09.1980, the orders passed in the proceedings taken by the competent authority under Sections 8, 9 and 10(3) of the 1976 Act treating 17.02.1976 as the date of commencement of the Act in relation to the disputed land is void ab initio. The State Government, according to the learned counsel, failed to sustain the reasons on which the impugned G.O. i.e., G.O.Ms.No.161 was passed and relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL v. CHIEF ELECTION COMMR.[6], K.K. BHALLA v STATE OF M.P[7] and R.S. GARG v STATE OF U.P.[8] for the proposition that the respondents are precluded from supporting the impugned G.O. with reasons other than those contained in the impugned G.O. by way of counter-affidavits or oral submissions. They also relied on STATE OF A.P. v. S.B. KOMARAIAH[9] and GOVERNMENT OF A.P. v. V. SUDARSANAM[10], which were decided in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF A.P. v. AUDIKESAVA REDDY (supra), and argued that in view of these judgments of the Division Bench, the petitioners are entitled to relief in terms of the prayer made by them. Another argument of the learned counsel is that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988 and that they are entitled to the same benefits as any other holder of excess vacant land is entitled to as they are in actual physical possession even as on date, irrespective of whether the Act became applicable on 17.02.1976 or 29.09.1980. They relied on G.O.Ms.No.455 and contended that it is only after the owners i.e. petitioners in W.P.No.4141 of 2006 and their purchasers i.e. petitioners in W.P.Nos.4121 of 2006 and 4144 of 2006 are given the benefits under G.O.Ms.Nos.733 and 445 respectively that the power of allotment under Section 23 of the 1976 Act can be exercised by the State. Shri Rajendra Chowdary lastly argued that that G.O.Ms.No.161 is a result of the arbitrary exercise of executive fiat of the State Government and, therefore, the same is per se mala fide and is liable to be declared ultra vires the powers of the State Government under Section 23 of the 1976 Act. In support of this argument, Shri Chowdary relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in C.S. ROWJEE v ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION[11], S.PRATAP SINGH v STATE OF PUNJAB[12] and EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v UNION OF INDIA[13]. Shri D. Prakash Reddy argued that in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General in the earlier writ petitions that the matter may be remanded for deciding the question whether on the appointed day the land was ‘vacant land’ situated within the urban agglomeration and the same was covered by the master plan or not, the matter may now be remanded for fresh consideration by the State. Shri B. Adinarayana Rao heavily relied on the judgment and decree passed by District Court, Ranga Reddy in O.S.No.71 of 2001 and argued that once the suit filed by District Collector, Ranga Reddy on behalf of the government for grant of a declaration that the disputed land is government land, has been dismissed, the government cannot lay claim over the land and, in any case, G.O.Ms.No.733 read with G.O.Ms.No.239, G.O.Ms.Nos.455/456 are applicable to this case even if the disputed land is held to be ‘vacant land’, and the State Government is required to reconsider the whole issue in terms of the said Government Orders. Shri G. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for Andhra Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and Shri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Advocate General referred to the relief claimed in Writ Petition Nos.18385 of 1993 and 238 of 1994 and argued that as a consequence of setting aside of the judgment of the Division Bench, which had approved orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the proceedings taken under the 1976 Act starting from filing of statements under Section 6(1) on 06.09.1976 and 25.07.1997 and culminating in subsequent orders of the competent authority under Sections 8(4), 9, 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) will be deemed to have been upheld and have attained finality. According to the learned counsel, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF A.P. v. AUDIKESAVA REDDY (supra), it is not open to the petitioners to seek reopening of the proceedings under the 1976 Act. The learned Solicitor General referred to and relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in M/S. KESHO RAM AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA[14], BALLABH DAS MATHURDAS v. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MALAKPUR[15], KAUSALYA DEVI BOGRA v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR[16], DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS, A.P. v. M.R. APPARAO[17] and ANIL KUMAR NEOTIA v. UNION OF INDIA[18] in support of his contention that once the decision of the High Court is set aside by the Supreme Court, it is not open to contend that a particular aspect or argument was not considered by the Supreme Court. Learned Solicitor General also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in KUNHAYAMMED (supra) in support of his contention that once the Supreme Court granted leave in a Special Leave Petition and renders its decision in appeal, the doctrine of merger is attracted and the order of the High Court gets merged