THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.A.No.1028 of 2002 Date of Order: 15-11-2010 Between: 1. The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. ..Appellants and 1. P.Krishna and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.A.No.1028 of 2002 Oral Order : (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No22339 of 1996, dated 09-04-2002. The facts in nutshell, which are not in dispute, for the purpose of disposal of writ appeal, are as under: For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The petitioners, who are belonging to backward classes of the society and also landless poor persons, are entitled to assignment of land available with the Government. Accordingly, the surplus land in Sy.No.101/A/1 was allotted to the writ petitioners, 5 acres each, in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short “the Act”), as per the value fixed by the Government. On paying the entire amount payable by them patta was issued to them on 27-10-1979 and got the land under cultivation. Meanwhile, on issuance of master plan, the lands were brought within the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. While so, the Government in G.O.Ms.733, dated 31-10-1988 exempted the lands from the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. As the assignees have violated the conditions of assignment, the Joint Collector by proceedings No.D.Dis.D1/2642/90, dated 16-05-1992 cancelled the pattas. The writ petitioners successfully challenged the said proceedings in W.P.Nos.7845 and 10704 of 1992, which were allowed granting liberty to the authorities to take action under the provisions of Land Ceiling Act. Pursuant to the liberty granted, the Revenue Divisional Officer—2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 26-07-1996 to the five writ petitioners calling upon them why the assignment made in their favour should not be cancelled and resumed back the land by the Government for violating the conditions of assignment. As no explanation was offered by the petitioners, final orders were passed on 12-09-1996 under Section 14(5) of the Act, cancelling the patta granted in their favour authorising the Mandal Revenue Officer to resume the possession of the land in favour of the Government. Questioning the same fourteen assignees have filed W.P.No.22339 of 1996 before this Court to declare sub-section (4) (i) of Section 14 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 as unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order of the 2nd respondent—Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella dated 12-09-1996. Pending writ petition, the 4th respondent —Society got itself impleaded. The learned single Judge repelled the contention advanced on behalf of writ petitioners, viz., once the amounts determined for assignment of land under Section 14 of the Act have already been paid subsisting the ownership still with the Government is arbitrary, held the terms and conditions of transfer are such that it is not alienable, but heritable and it cannot be said that such a condition cannot be imposed. But the learned Judge proceeded on the ground in view of interest of the third parties in the land, viz., 4th respondent—Society, issuing show cause notice at that point of time that the land was not cultivated within three years becomes insignificant. As the Society had obtained lay out and alienated the land to its members, initiation of the proceedings under Section 14(5) of the Act after assignment is unreasonable. Since the lay out has already been approved by HUDA, which conforms to the requirements of the lay out Rules, the development cannot be said to be contrary to the master plan; then the Society is also entitled to assignment of the land under sub-section (2) of Section 14 and directed the authorities to allot the land to the Society by collecting a sum of Rs.30,000/- per acre towards costs and directed the 4th respondent—Cooperative House Building Society to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre for the entire extent of Ac.42.25 gts. within a period of three months and on receipt of such amount the respondents shall assign the land in favour of the 4th respondent—Co-operative House Building Society for enabling it to allot the land to its members in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. Learned Special Government Pleader, representing learned Advocate General, for the appellants submits that when the writ petition itself is filed questioning Section 14(4) of the Act and to declare the order of the 2nd respondent dated 12-09-1996 as illegal and no relief as such has been granted to the writ petitioners, issuing a direction in favour of the 4th respondent— Society is uncalled for. The Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot grant relief which is not claimed in the writ petition. For the said proposition reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in KRISHNA PRIYA GANGULY v. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW[1] . Per contra, Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the 15th respondent—Society contends that in respect of very same land in the same village, LGC has been filed. Against the order of eviction persons aggrieved filed writ petition in this Court and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court, in which the Government was directed to pass orders on the applications filed by the respondents in LGC in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16- 02-2008. In the present case also, respondents 1 to 14 have made applications for regularisation of their construction as per the various Government Orders including G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16-02-2008. Therefore, direction issued by the learned single Judge needs no interference. We see sufficient force in the contention advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader. It is fairly well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court cannot grant relief excess than prayed in the writ petition. (See CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION VS. LAXMAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED (1998) 8 SCC 326 and STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. RAJ KARAN SINGH (1998) 8 SCC 529). Once the learned single Judge uphold the power of the Government to resume the land for violation of conditions in granting patta and the writ petitioners have violated the conditions stipulated therein and alienated the property, the same has to be resumed under sub-section (5) of Section 14. The learned Judge having not granted the relief to the writ petitioners nor quashed the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, authorising the M.R.O., Serilingamaplly Mandal to resume the possession of the land in favour of the Government, directing the Government to assign the land to the 4th respondent—Society at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre is contrary to the pleadings and relief claimed in the writ petition, which in all probability cannot be granted. In view of the same, the order passed by the learned single Judge to the extent to assign the land to the 4th respondent—Society at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre cannot be sustainable and it is accordingly set aside. However, it is open for the 4th respondent— Society to make an application before the Government for regularisation of their property either in the name of the Society or its individual members, who are in unauthorised occupation, as per the policy of the Government enunciated in G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16-02- 1988 and work out their remedies before the Government in accordance with law. The Writ Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. 15-11-2010 Murthy [1] AIR 1984 SC 186 = (1984) 1 SCC 307