THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 437 of 2011. JUDGEMENT: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Heard the learned Special Counsel representing the Advocate General for the appellant and Sri.K.Rajendra Chowdary instructed by Sri.K.Durga Prasad for the respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the 4th respondent. This appeal illustrates another episode in a meandering course of litigation under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). One Seetha Ramiah owned and in possession of large extents of land. After his demise, his wife, sons and daughters filed six declarations in respect of the properties of late Seetha Ramaiah, which they claim to have inherited in their individual capacity. Respondents 2 and 3 herein are the daughters of Sri.Seetha Ramaiah who were married by the date the Act came into force. All the six declarations being (C.C.Nos. 9274 to 9279) were clubbed together and the Primary Authority-cum-Special Officer passed an order dt. 23.7.1979 computing the excess land at 4,08,184 square meters; possession of which is claimed to have been taken over by the State on 18.7.1980. It requires to be noticed that the Prima Authority rejected the declaration of respondents 2 and 3 on the ground that they were not entitled to hold any land derived from Sri. Seetha Ramaiah. It is the grievance of the respondents 2 and 3 that no notice or opportunity was provided to them by the Competent Authority before passing the order dt. 23.7.1979, whereby their declarations were rejected per se. After taking possession of the excess land on 18.7.1980, the State initially allotted the same to the Social Welfare Department and thereafter to the 4th respondent herein. Possession is said to have been taken after following the process under Section 10 of the 1976 Act. Aggrieved by the determination dated 23.07.1979 of the Primary Authority, all the declarants filed writ petitions. The respondents 2 and 3 filed W.P.Nos. 28157 and 28158 of 1998 whereas the other declarants filed W.P.Nos. 28874, 28390, 24491 and 28292 of 1998. A learned single Judge of this Court who heard the writ petitions, by a common order dt. 15.2.1999 allowed all the writ petitioners (including those filed by the respondents 2 and 3) and declared that in so far as these respondents (the writ petitioners) are concerned, they are entitled to hold the land, which they inherited from Sri.Seetha Ramaiah and also to the benefits of G.O.Ms.Nos. 733 and 289 dt. 31.10.1988 and 1.6.1989 respectively. The learned single Judge also held that the declarations of the respondents 2 and 3 herein in C.C.No. 9277 and 9279, which were rejected by the Primary Authority was without notice and opportunity. Aggrieved by the common Judgement dt. 15.2.1999, the State preferred W.A.Nos. 438 to 443 of 1999. By the Judgement dt. 18.11.1999, the State’s appeals were dismissed confirming the Judgement of the learned single Judge. The State carried the matter further by way of civil appeals to the Supreme Court, being Civil Appeal Nos. 5309 to 5314 of 2000. It is the admitted factual scenario that while the appeals of the State were allowed in respect of the other declarants; the appeals in respect of respondents 2 and 3 herein were dismissed and consequently the order of the learned single Judge dt. 15.2.1999 as confirmed by the Division Bench, by the Judgement dt. 18.11.1999 has become final. It is axiomatic that on the declaration of invalidity of the primary authority’s orders in so far as they pertain to respondents 2 and 3 herein, by the Judgement dt. 15.2.1999, the legal basis for the possession obtained by the State on 18.7.1980 stood comprehensively eclipsed. Consequently, the ownership and jural possession of the respondents 2 and 3 in respect of the lands declared in C.C.Nos. 9277 and 9279 of 1976 stood restored proprio vigore. After conclusion of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5209 to 5314 of 2000, the Primary Authority initiated proceedings from the stage of Section 8 of the Act and passed order on 30.12.2006 declaring respondents 2 and 3 to be entitled to retain an extent of 1000 square meters and Ac. 5.00 each and the to benefits under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 733 dt. 31.10.1988. The Primary Authority curiously; notwithstanding the Judgement dt. 15.2.1999 (which had become final), and the clear and unequivocal declaration in the earlier round of litigation (declaring the entitlement of respondents 2 and 3 to the benefits under G.O.Ms.No 289 dt. 1.6.1989, as well) held that these respondents were not entitled to retain an extent of Ac. 3.33 cents each in addition to the entitlement to retain Ac. 5.00 each under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 733 dt. 31.10.1988. Aggrieved by the above order of the Primary Authority dt. 30.12.2006, respondents 2 and 3 carried the matter in appeal under Section 33 of the 1976 Act. On 20.2.2007, the Appelate Authority granted stay of operation of the order of the Primary Authority dt. 30.12.2006. There is however a dispute whether the State or the Competent Authority (the Primary Authority) received the orders passed by the Appellate Authority dt. 20.2.2007. While the appellants demur on the issue and state that the order passed by the Appellate Court were not received, the respondents 2 and 3 contend to the contra, a dispute which has been dealt in the Judgement under appeal. As nothing substantive turns upon this fact, we do not propose to deal with the same. By the order dt. 31.1.2008, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeals of respondents 2 and 3 and declared that the appellants were entitled to the benefit under G.O.Ms.No. 288 as well i.e. an additional extent of Ac. 3.33 cents of land in addition to what had been declared by the Competent Authority. Against the order of the Appellate Authority dt. 31.1.2008, the State filed W.P.No. 27703 of 2010 and the respondents 2 and 3 filed W.P.Nos. 28113 and 28114 of 2010. By a common Judgement dt. 29.3.2011, W.P.No. 27703 of 2010 filed by the State was dismissed while W.P.Nos. 28113 and 28114 of 2010 were allowed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.No. 27703 of 2010, the State has filed the present appeal. It is fairly conceded on behalf of the appellant that after the Appellate Authority’s orders dt. 31.1.2008, no fresh proceedings for acquisition of land in excess of the ceiling limit, as permitted by the several clauses of Section 10 of the Act, were ever initiated by the State or by the Competent Authority. The State and the Competent Authority are ad idem on the assumption that since possession was obtained after a due process on 18.7.1980, pursuant to the initial determination by the Special Officer on 23.7.1979, the process required to be followed was only a ministerial act of re-adjustment of the excess land taken possession of; and return of possession of the same to the respondents 2 and 3, consequent on the order dt. 31.1.2008 of the Appellate Authority. After the order dt. 31.1.2008 of the Appellate Authority, the respondents 2 and 3 executed ‘Delivery of Possession Note’ on 6.2.2008. This ‘note’ reads: I, Smt.M.Krishnaveni W/o: Mohan Rao and on behalf of my sister Smt. P.Rukmini W/o: Satyanarayana Rao in the presence of Smt. P.Rukmini’s representative, N.Ravendra Kumar S/o: M.C. Namburu hereby accept and take delivery of the physical vacant and peaceful possession of the land of extent of Ac. 10.00 gts and 2000 sq. mtrs or 42,468 sq. mtrs inS.No. 208 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in terms of our letter dt. 22.1.2008 and 5.2.2008, from the Commandant 8th Bn. APSP, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 5309 of 2000 and 5311 of 2000 dt. 11th August, 2008 and the orders of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad dt. 31.12.2006 and office memo No. 24608 dt. 31.8.2007 and other consequential orders. Vacant possession of the said land as per the sketches enclosed is delivered/handed over by the Commandant, 8th Bn. APSP, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District to Smt.M.Krishnaveni W/o:M.Mohana Rao and Smt. P.Rukmini W/o: P.Satyanarayana Rao who have accepted and taken over the same. Respondents 2 and 3 filed W.P.Nos. 28113 and 28114 of 2010 asserting that all the proceedings initiated under the Act, pertaining to the lands declared by them have abated in view of the Urban land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Central Act 15 of 1999), (for short ‘the Repeal Act’) as adopted by the Legislature of the State on 27.3.2008 under Article 252 of the Constitution; for a consequent declaration including that the appellant and the 4th respondent herein are in occupation of the lands declared by these respondents under the provisions of the Act; and for a direction to redeliver possession, including the vacant possession, if there be any constructions therein. The contention of respondents 2 and 3 herein in their writ petitions (adverted to supra) was that since there was no legal right or jurisdiction subsisting in the State to continue in possession of the lands held by them as on the date of the Repeal Act came into operational proprio vigore on its adoption by the State Legislature and in view of the provisions the Repeal Act; possession as on the date of coming into force of the Repeal Act should vest in the State as the condition precedent for the State’s legitimacy to continue to enjoy the ownership, control or domain over the lands under the Repealed provisions of the Act. Since the possession obtained on 18.7.1980 was clearly declared invalid; since the initial order of the Competent Officer dt. 23.7.1979 was declared illegal; since no legal possession of these lands was obtained thereafter by following the due process under Section10 of the Act, the provisions of the Repeal Act operate to disapply the provisions of the Act, to the lands of respondents 2 and 3 herein. The learned single Judge has syllogistically analysed the matrix of facts and concluded that the possession alleged to have been taken by the Competent Authority and the State in 1980 was illegal in so far as the respondents 2 and 3 are concerned and the Competent Authority committed a grave error in not restoring possession of the entire land to the respondents 2 and 3 immediately after the Judgement of the learned single Judge on 15.2.1999 (in the writ petitions filed by the respondents 2 and 3 in the earlier round of litigation) and even after confirmation of that judgement in intra court appeals and the dismissal of the civil appeals by the Supreme Court. The learned single Judge further held that pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority dt. 31.1.2008 and adoption of the Repeal Act and its operation in the State with effect from 27.3.2008, no proceedings under Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(4) of the 1976 Act were initiated by the Competent Authority in respect of the surplus lands of the respondents 2 and 3 in S.Nos. 209 and 208 of Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District under C.C.Nos. 9277and 9279 of 1976 pertaining to the respondents 2 and 3 and therefore the State is denuded of the power and authority to hold on to any land of respondents 2 and 3, under the provisions of the Act. As the exclusionary provisions of the Repeal Act do not operate in view of the indisputable matrix of facts namely that after invalidation of the possession obtained by the State by order dt. 18.7.1980, taking of possession of the excess lands of the respondents 2 and 3, no lawful process was even initiated, after the Appellate Authority’s order dt. 31.1.2008 for taking possession of the lands and that the de facto possession obtained on 18.7.1980 ceased to be legal after the Judgement of the Supreme Court and was never transformed into a de jure possession. The learned single Judge summed up the findings while disposing of the writ petitions of the State being W.P.No. 27703 of 2010 and of respondents 2 and 2 being W.P.No. 28113 and 28114 of 2010, as under: a) Section 4 of the Repeal Act provides that all legal proceedings pending before the commencement of he Repeal Act before any Court, Tribunal or Authority shall abate whereas Section 3 thereof provides that where any vacant land had vested in the State under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 and the possession of such vested land taken over by the State before the commencement of the Repeal Act alone will be saved from the operation of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The phrase ‘possession of which has been taken over’ appearing in Section 3(2) (a) of the Repeal Act connotes the possession contemplated under Section 10(6) pursuant to Section 10(5) notice of the Act of 1976; b) The Competent Authority or the State had not taken over possession under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 of the surplus land in S.Nos. 208 and 209 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in C.C.Nos. 9279 and 9277 of 1976 pertaining to the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 28113 and 28114 of 2010 before the commencement of Repeal Act and consequently those proceedings remain abated under the provisions of Section 4 of the Repeal Act and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases cited supra. In sequel thereto, the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 28113 and 28114 of 2010 are entitled to the possession of the entire remaining land in S.Nos. 208 and 209 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; c) After the passing of the orders dated 31.1.2008 by the Appellate Authority, the Competent Authority has admittedly not issued any proceedings under Sections 10(1), 10(3),10(5) etc., of the Act of 1976 in respect of the surplus lands in S.Nos. 208 and 209 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in C.C.Nos. 9279 and 9277 of 1976 pertaining to the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 28113 and 28114 of 2010 and in the light of the Repeal Act coming into force with effect from 27.3.2008, all the proceedings remain abated and consequently the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 28113 and 28114 of 2010 are entitled to the possession of the entire land in S.Nos. 208 and 209 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; d) There is a considerable and inordinate delay of nearly three years by the State and the Competent Authority in filing the Writ Petition No. 27703 of 2010 challenging the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 31.1.2008 and the said writ petition appears to have been filed as a counter blast to the requests and repeated reminders of the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 28113 and 28114 of 2010 to the Competent Authority to hand over the remaining subject land; e) In view of the Repeal Act the possession of the State and 8th Bn. APSP, Kondapur, over the remaining land in an extent of Ac. 14-15.95 guntas in S.No. 209 and Ac. 4-18.89 guntas in S.No. 208 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is illegal and unauthorised as per the Circular issued by State vide Memo No. 17377/UC-1(1)/2008- 1 dt. 24.4.2008 and the possession of the subject lands, as discussed hereinabove, be restored within two months from today to the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 28113 and 28114 of 2010 and in case any constructions are fund to have been raised in any part of the land in S.Nos. 208 and 209, which is now liable to be resumed, the State is directed to allot and deliver vacant possession of such equivalent extent of land in the vicinity of survey numbers aforesaid survey numbers and; f) The impugned order of the Appellate Authority dt. 31.1.2008 is valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1976. In the facts and circumstances stated above and in view of the chronology of facts and proceedings adverted to above, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions recorded by the learned single Judge in dismissing the State’s writ petition. The order under appeal is impeccable and warrants no appellate interference. The appeal is without merits and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 20.07.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 437 of 2011. JUDGEMENT: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 20.07.2011.