THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition Nos.5594 & 16692 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: % 31-03-2009 Between: Dr.Baddam Mahender Reddy and others …Petitioners And State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Ashok Anand Kumar ^ Counsel for Respondents : G.P for Revenue & Sri T. Sharath, < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.5594 & 16692 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in W.P.No.5594 of 2008 purchased different extents of land in Sy.No.27/1 of Guttala Begumpet Village, through various sale deeds. The land in that survey number was originally owned by one Mr.V.Venkateswara Rao. Thereafter, the land changed hands. Since it is within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) was filed. It is stated that an order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed, holding that the land in Sy.No.27/1 is in excess of ceiling limits. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29-07-2002 providing for allotment/regularization of excess land, subject to payment of the amount fixed therefor. The petitioners intended to avail that benefit, and accordingly submitted applications. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.539, dated 10-05-2006, extending the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.455 to the petitioners and certain others. While implementing the orders, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, prepared some sketches for the lands covered by G.O.Ms.No.539. The 5th respondent and certain others, including the petitioner in W.P.No.16692 of 2008 submitted applications/complaints, before the authorities of the Urban Land Ceiling Department, alleging that the demarcation made in favour of the writ petitioners is incorrect, and that the land in Sy.No.27/2 was also added to their plots. The Inspector of Survey of the office of the Special Officer-cum- Competent Authority the 4th respondent herein, issued intimation notice dated 18-02-2008 to the petitioners, requiring them to be present before him on 15-03-2008, together with the necessary record. It was pointed out that representations have been received to the effect that some variation in the dimensions and boundaries for the land in Sy.No.27 of Guttala Begumpet village were noticed. Steps were initiated obviously, to rectify them. The notice is challenged in W.P.No.5594 of 2008. W.P.No.16692 of 2008 is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents therein to rectify the records, on the strength of the report dated 05-02-2008, submitted by the Enquiry Officer, in relation to the land in Sy.No.27 of Guttala Begumpet Village. Heard Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Assignments, and T. Sri Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.16692 of 2008. The petitioners in W.P.No.5594 of 2008 availed the benefit, provided for by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.455. The effect thereof is that, the land, which has otherwise accrued to the Government, as excess land under the Act, is permitted to be retained by the petitioners. By itself, such a benefit, does not either confer title or right, over the property. It would only neutralize the operation of the Act, vis- à-vis the land in question. In fact, a person who claims benefit under G.O.Ms.No.455, has to fall back upon an independent source of title for the land, such as sale deed, succession, or other devolutions. Further, an individual, claiming benefit of allotment/exemption under the G.O., is supposed to hold independent title, and be in possession of the land in question. The preparation of sketch, or enclosure of a plan to such proceedings, has necessarily, to conform to the description of the property in the corresponding sale deed or other documents. The Authority under the Act cannot grant allotment or exemption in respect of a land different from the one, which is already held by the applicant. It is axiomatic that, if there exists any dispute as to boundaries or location, the effected parties have to work out their remedies, either by filing a suit or by taking recourse to the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act. The notice impugned in W.P.No.5594 of 2008 is not traceable to any powers, conferred to the Authorities under the Act. It is no part of the duty of a functionary under the Act, to demarcate the lands, either declared as excess or otherwise, particularly, in the context of granting the benefit under the G.O. It is only the machinery provided for under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, that can be pressed into service. At any rate, the Act itself was repealed, and no steps thereunder are permissible at this stage. W.P.No.16692 of 2008 is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents therein to rectify the records, particularly, in the light of the report of the Enquiry Officer. It has already been pointed out that any disputes in relation to survey and demarcation have to be resolved by having recourse to suit, or remedies under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act. Hence, Writ Petition No.5594 of 2008 is allowed, and the notice impugned therein is set aside. Writ Petition No.16692 of 2008 is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner therein to avail the remedies by filing a suit, or to take recourse to the steps under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, for demarcation of the land. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.31-03-2009. L.R. copy to be marked. (B/O) KO*