IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5385 of 2007 Between: K. Chandramouli S/o Suryanarayana r/o Postal Colony, Patamata, Vijayawada-10. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer and Competent Authority Urban Land Ceilings, Vijayawada. 3 The President, deendayalngar, Co-operative House Buildings Society, Vijayawada. 4 Banka Saraswathi W/o. Narayana Appadu R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 5 Koraganji Krishna S/o. Appala Nayudu R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 6 Pilla Balatripura Sundari R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 7 Katikala Samsun S/o. Moses R/o. Deenadayal Co- operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 8 Prathuri Venkata Laxminarayana Sharma S/o. Venkatappaiah R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 9 Pappula Venkateswara Reddy S/o. Venkata Reddy R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 10 Bayana Jhansi Laxmi Papamma D/o. Appa Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 11 Pyla Srinivasa Rao S/o. Kanayya R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 12 Pyla Chinnammadu W/o. Krishna Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 13 V. Suryanarayana S/o. Dalappadu R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 14 Bayana Kamaraju Venkata Ramani D/o. Appa Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 15 Pilla Jahnavi W/o. Srinivasa Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 16 Chaduvula Arogyamma W/o. Vinoda Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 17 Patarla Mariyamma W/o. Joseph R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 18 S.K. Saleem S/o. Khader Bi R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 19 Majji Narasimha Rao S/o. Appi Konda R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 20 Chilaka Japher S/o. Joseph R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 21 Mohammed Yaseen S/o. Abdul Khader R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 22 Kalupuri Venkata Ratnam W/o. John R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 23 Turimella Venkata Ratnamma S/o. Sobhanadri R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 24 Gudala Anasurya W/o. Narsinga Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 25 Majji Dalinaidu S/o. Appikonda R/o. Deenadayal Co-operativem Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 26 Yellu Muthamma W/o. Muthayya R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 27 Bavara Krishna Rao S/o. Kumari Naidu R/o. Deenadayal Co-operativem Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 28 Pyla Srinivasa Rao S/o. Kamaraju R/o. Deenadayal Co- operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 29 Vandrasi Durgamba W/o. Kondal Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operativem Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 30 Ellipilli Durgamba W/o. Vishnumurthy R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 31 Surala Lakshmi W/o. Ramulu R/o. Deenadayal Co- operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 32 Bavara Venkata Rao S/o. Appala Swamy R/o. Deenadayal Co-operativem Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 33 Alla Ramachandra Rao S/o. Venkateswara Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operativem Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 34 Chilaka Japher S/o. Joseph R/o. Deenadayal Co- operativem Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 35 Chilaka Marthamma W/o. David Raju R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 36 Bavara Suryanarayana S/o. Gopi Naidu R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 37 Abbadasari Hussenamma W/o. Kotaiah R/o. Deenadayal Co-operative Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 38 Kilari Durgamba W/o. Paravatjeswara Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operativem Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 39 Bayana Heramba Kumar S/o. Appa Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operativem Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 40 Bayana Krishna Kumar S/o. Appa Rao R/o. Deenadayal Co-operativem Housing Society, Chittinagar, Vijayawada - 9 RR 4to40 impleaded as per court order dt. 16-4-2007 in WPMP 9207 of 2007 .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms. No.1610 dt 3-11-2006 on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent for allotment of surplus land measuring 4,104.68 sq. mts in Revenue Survey No. 144/6A of Vidyadharapruam, Vijayawada in C.C. No. B1 222/76 of Sri Ongole Srinivasa Rao S/o Ramachanddra Rao the surplus land holder and reporting that there are not court cases pending, for allotment of surplus land to 3rd respondent contrary to the report dated 16-12-1998 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada urban as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional against the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.D.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: One Sri Ongole Srinivasa Rao owned an extent of 6515 sq. mts. of land in R.S.No.144/6A and certain other extents, in Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Vidyadharapuram is within the Vijayawada Urban Agglomeration. Therefore, he filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). An order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed on 29.04.1982 determining that he holds land in excess of ceiling limits. Almost at the same time, the declarant entered into an agreement with the third respondent-society for sale of land. Efforts were made by the parties to get exemption under G.O.Ms.No.136, dated 28.01.1981. It is stated that the efforts did not fructify, and ultimately, the declarant cancelled his agreement with the third respondent, on 5.09.1991. After canceling the agreement in favour of the third respondent, Ongloe Srinivasa Rao entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 24.10.1991 in respect of the same land. He died in the year 1994. Proceedings ensued before various Courts and authorities, be it at the instance of the petitioner or the third respondent, vis-à-vis the land. The petitioner filed O.S.No.26 of 2006 in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 24.10.1991 against the legal representatives of late Srinivasa Rao. A decree is said to have been passed on 30.10.2008 by the Lok Adalath. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002 providing for allotment/regularization of excess land in favour of the trespassers/occupants of the same. The third respondent-society submitted application, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.455. Through orders in G.O.Ms.No.1610, dated 3.11.2006, the first respondent granted allotment in favour of the members of the third respondent-Society. The said G.O. is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that there was absolutely no basis for the first respondent to issue the impugned G.O., particularly, when serious disputes persisted as to the possession over the property. It is also stated that at different stages, findings were recorded to the effect that the third respondent-society is not genuine, and that its members are not in possession of the land. Separate counter affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and respondent No.3 denying the averments made by the petitioner. Heard Sri D. Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Assignment and Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the third respondent. There is long standing dispute and litigation involving different parties, in respect of the land. Substantial part of litigation of the land was in relation to the application of provisions of the Act. The order, dated 29.04.1982 under Section 8(4) of the Act became final and the land was declared as excess under the Act. At different points of time, the third respondent on the one hand and the petitioner on the other held agreements of sale from the landowner. As of now, the petitioner is armed with a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale. The third respondent has been pursuing the matter only in terms of the Act. Initially, an effort was to get exemption under Section 20 of the Act, which is applicable only to the transactions in favour of the Cooperative Societies. Subsequently, effort was made to avail the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002. Under this G.O. it is not necessary that the occupant of an excess land must be a member of the society. It can be any one. Though at some point of time it was alleged that the members of the society are not in possession of the entire land, ultimately at the stage of issuing impugned G.O., the first respondent was satisfied that the land is in their occupation. Be that as it may, mere grant of exemption or allotment under the impugned G.O. does not, by itself alter the rights of the parties against each other. To be precise, if the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the decree for specific performance, the mere fact that the impugned G.O. was issued, does not have any adverse effect upon it. The only difference would be that in the context of delivery, or recovery of possession, it would be the members of the third respondent- society, instead of the vendor under the agreement of sale. Except that, the G.O. does not bring about any qualitative change in the rights of the parties. Another reason, which prompts this Court to desist from delving into the merits of the matter is that even if the impugned G.O. is to be set aside for any reason, it does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The reason is that the Act has since been repealed and there is no way, that the petitioner can get the benefit under the G.O.Ms.No.455. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of clarifying that the impugned G.O., by itself does not bring about any change vis-à-vis the rights of the parties in respect of the land in question. The G.O. would have the effect only of enabling the third respondent to protect itself from any adverse action under the Act, and nothing more. The parties shall have to work out their interests, rights and obligations, independently. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 17th April, 2009 Js.