IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 11698 of 2008 Between: Chanakyapuri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., (Regd. No.TBC 92) Raidurg village, Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Secretary, C.D. Mukesh S/o. C.R. Dattatreya, aged 54 years, R/o. East Marredpally, SEcunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Commissioner (Appeals) o/o Chief Commissioner Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad, Station Road Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Chandarvihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Parishrama Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, declaring that the proceedings under U.L.C. Act and taking possession of land in Sy.No. 83, of Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, void and non-est and further declare that in view of the repeal of U.L.C. Act the right, title over the land in Sy.No. 83 of Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as subsisting and be pleased to pass such other and further orders as it deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos 1 to 3.: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Mr.K.V.Simhadri The Court the made following ORDER: This writ petition is filed by Chanakyapuri Cooperative Housing Society Limited, hereinafter referred to as ‘the society’ seeking the following relief. “to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the proceedings under ULC Act and taking possession of land in Sy.No.83 of Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, void and non est and further to declare that in view of repeal of ULC Act, the right, title over the land in Sy.No.83 of Raidurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as subsisting”. The case has a chequered history. One Mohd.Ruknuddin Ahmed and others were the original owners of land admeasuring Ac.526.07 in Sy.No.83 of Raidurg Village of Ranga Reddy District. The owners entered into an agreement of sale in favour of one Sri Venkateshwara Enterprises from whom the petitioner society is stated to have purchased the subject matter of land by way of an agreement of sale on 9.8.1974 and paid substantial amounts. Thereafter the Urban Land (Ceiling on Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 17.2.1976. On 16.9.1976 and 27.7.1996 one Ahmed Abdul Aziz and 11 others filed declarations in Form I under Section 6 of the Act and on 1.7.1997 and 11.11.1997 draft statement under Section 8(1) and notice under Section 8(3) of the Act were issued calling for objections as per which the land is situated inside the limits of the master plan and is not mainly used for agriculture. Therefore, the petitioner society made a representation on 26.8.1976 for grant of exemption under Section 20 of the Act. On 16.1.1980 a notification was issued by the competent authority under Section 10(1) of the Act stating the extent of the surplus land held by the declarants and affording an opportunity of hearing to all the interested persons. Thereafter, on 21.2.1981 the State Government vide memo No.5880/UC-II/76-12 rejected the application of the declarants and the petitioner society and allotted the entire land to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on 21.2.1981 thereby rejecting the request of the petitioner society for exemption. That was challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.1290 of 1981 and this Court vide order dated 16.7.1983 disposed of the said writ petition inter alia holding that; “the petitioner society cannot be said to have any locus standi to maintain the writ petition and they are utter strangers to the litigation. It was also observed in the said judgment that the argument of the petitioner that the members of the petitioner society were not given notices at any stage of the acquisition does not merit serious consideration as the perusal of the Central Act would show that the petitioner is not at all entitled to any such notice. The petitioner’s agreement is void and has no legal effect. A perusal of the provisions of the Central Act would show that it is only the owner that has been recognized as being entitled to a notice. It cannot be otherwise. No law can conceivably say that notice should go to utter strangers and interlopers.” Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal being W.A.No.649 of 1983 and the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 33 of the Act. On 1.12.1992, the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner society challenging the rejection of exemption under Section 20 of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner society again filed W.P.No.16792 of 1992 before this Court challenging the order passed by the appellate authority dated 1.12.1992 which was dismissed by this Court on 11.5.1993. The petitioner again questioned the said order unsuccessfully in W.A.No.806 of 1993. SLP Nos.5739 and 5740 filed against the order of the Division Bench were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.3.2001. Meanwhile, possession of the entire excess land was handed over to Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. Thereafter the declarants filed a representation before the competent authority to recompute their holdings as on 23.6.1980 the day on which the revised master plan was published basing on the judgment dated 22.11.2002 in O.S.No.71 of 2001 whereby the trial Court rejected the claim of the government that the land belongs to it. 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 and 456 dated 29.7.2002. A similar representation was also made to the Chief Secretary of the Government and against the dismissal of the said representation, the petitioner society and others filed W.P.Nos.4121, 4141, 4144 and 5776 of 2006 and this Court by common judgment dated 17.1.2007 dismissed the cases holding that; “In view of our findings regarding taking over of possession by the State Government under a panchanama on 20.7.1993 and transfer of the property initially to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and later to APIIC, the contention of the purchasers that they are in occupation/possession of the land of their respective plots purchased by them cannot be accepted.” After the above said order, the petitioners filed an application to suspend the said judgment on the ground they would approach the Supreme Court and this Court vide order dated 1.2.2007 observed; “Respondent Nos.1 to 3 as also Respondent No.4 asserted that the possession was taken as far back as the year 1993 and the 4th respondent has been in possession of the land since 14.2.2006. In the judgment rendered in the main writ petition, we accepted the plea of the respondents that the possession was taken over by the Government in pursuance of the declaration made under Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act on 20.7.1993 and the same was handed over to the 4th respondent on 14.2.2006. In view of these findings given by this Court, the plea of the petitioners that they are still in possession of the properties cannot be accepted…… The petitioners failed to produce any tangible evidence in support of this allegation and therefore this plea is liable to be rejected.” Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners again approached the Supreme Court and vide order dated 19.3.2007 the Supreme Court refused to stay the auction of the lands by APIIC and observed that sale if any would be subject to the result of the appeals. Thereafter once again the petitioner society approached this Court by way of the present writ petition stating that since the ULC act has been repealed and since they are in possession of the lands, they are vested with right and title in the lands. Heard Sri R.Narasimha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Vahnavati, learned Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Sri K.V.Simhadri for APIIC. A detailed chronology of events has been filed by the 4th respondent APIIC. As per the material produced before this court, referred to supra, it is evident that in the earlier rounds of litigation the petitioner failed to obtain any relief from this court. Even though the petitioner stated that it entered into agreement of sale with the original owner or his GPA holder, no such document is placed before the Court. As on today, the land was not registered in favour of the petitioner society. As long back as on 16.7.1983 itself this Court in W.P.No.1290 of 1981 observed that the petitioner society has no locus to maintain the writ petition and are strangers to the litigation. Further, a Division Bench of this Court has already relegated the petitioner society to the remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Act which was negatived by the appellate authority vide order dated 1.12.1992 and challenging the same the petitioner preferred W.P.No.16797 of 1992 and as observed supra, this Court vide order dated 11.5.1993 dismissed the said writ petition and even thereafter the litigation continued. In all the judgments, it was observed that the petitioner society is not in possession of the land and the same was handed over under a panchanama initially to HUDA and thereafter to APIIC. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be permitted to once again agitate that it is in possession of the land and, therefore, entitled to have right and title over it. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.19.6.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Commissioner (Appeals) o/o Chief Commissioner Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad, Station Road Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Chandarvihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Parishrama Bhavan, Hyderabad. 5 Two CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd. 6 2 CD copies.