THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4615 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to approve and accept the retainable area of 1000 sq.mtrs. as requested by the petitioner on 14.9.1999 indicating the same in red colour in the annexed map and for payment of compensation for the excess land of 1826.76 sq.mtrs. to him. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 2826.76 sq.mtrs. of land in Sy.No.387 of Shaikpet village, Shaikpet mandal, Hyderabad district. He filed declaration in Form-I under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) before the third respondent-Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, which was registered as C.C.No.E2/1869/76. After due enquiry, the third respondent passed orders under Section 8(4) and final statement under Section 9 of the Act vide proceedings dated 5.2.1988 observing that the petitioner holds an extent of 2826.76 sq.mtrs. of Sy.No.387 of Shaikpet village, Shaikpet mandal, Hyderabad district and he is entitled to hold an extent of 1000 sq.mtrs. of land as retainable area as per statutory entitlement under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act out of 2826.76 sq.mtrs. The third respondent arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner holds vacant land to an extent of 1826.76 sq.mtrs. in excess of ceiling limit. While passing the said order, the third respondent has not sub-divided the retainable area of 1000 sq.mtrs. and excess area of 1826.76 sq.mtrs., which is causing undue hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner. Petitioner is unable to enjoy the statutory entitlement of 1000 sq.mtrs. of land in spite of lapse of 23 years time in view of pendency of declaration filed under Section 6(1) of the Act and so far, he did not receive any compensation for the excess land of 1826.76 sq.mtrs. According to the petitioner, he is aged about 79 years (as of today) and he has no other source of income for his livelihood. He is contemplating to sell the retainable area in order to use the sale proceeds for survival for rest of his life and also for the benefit of family members, but he could not do so. Petitioner made a representation to the third respondent on 14.9.1999 along with sketch marking the retainable area in red colour as per his choice under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act and requested the third respondent to accept the same, but so far third respondent did not furnish any sub-divisional sketch indicating the retainable area of 1000 sq.mtrs. as per petitioner’s choice and is keeping silence over the issue, though he is bound to furnish the sub-divisional sketch indicating the retainable area and paying compensation for the excess land of 1826.87 sq.mtrs. According to the petitioner, he has become old and is without any financial assistance. Hence this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of first respondent stating that after issuance of notification under Section 10(5) of the Act, orders under Section 10(6) of the Act were issued on 6.2.1997 authorising the Enquiry Officer, office of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad to take over possession of the said surplus land and hand over the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned. Accordingly, possession of the surplus land to an extent of 1826.72 sq.mtrs. was taken over possession on 31.3.1997 by the Enquiry Officer and in turn handed over the same to the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda under cover of panchanama. The said surplus land is in the possession of Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet mandal, being the custodian of Government lands. Government in G.O.Ms.No.358 Revenue (UC.II) Department dated 10.3.1998 issued orders allotting an extent of 760 sq.mtrs. out of the said surplus to M/s Mathur Kayasthas Education and Welfare Society for setting up of Compute Centre and requested to hand over the land to the Education Society. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet mandal has handed over possession of surplus land admeasuring 760 sq.mtrs in T.S.No.15, Bloock-F, Ward No.11, Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad to the said society on 28.3.1998 after duly conducting panchanama. The land claimed by the petitioner is the surplus land taken over by the third respondent and is in the possession of Government by virtue of notification under Section 10(3) of the Act in A.P. Gazette No.133 dated 7.6.1990 and taken over possession after following the prescribed procedure stipulated under the Act, whereas petitioner with a malafide intention claiming the said surplus land as retainable area under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. The retainable area is quite distinct and different from the surplus land under possession of the Government and the respondents never interfered with the area allotted to the petitioner. It is nothing but misconception of the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter that declarant in C.C.No.E1/1868/76 was provisionally declared as surplus vacant land holder under Section 8(1) of the Act to an extent of 2573 sq.mtrs. in Sy.No.387/P correlates to T.S.No.15, Ward No.11, Block-F, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad while allowing an extent of 1000 sq.mtrs. as retainable area under Section 4(I)(b) of the Act in proceedings No.E2/1868/76 dated 22.4.1985. The declarant has filed objection petitions on 18.12.1985 and on 17.9.1986 before the third respondent and the third respondent, after hearing objections on 5.9.1995 and on subsequent dates, finally determined the declarant as surplus land holder to an extent of 1826.72 sq.mtrs. in Sy.No.387 correlates to T.S.No.15, Ward No.11, Block-F, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad allowing an extent of 1000 sq.mtrs. in proceedings No.E2/1868/76 dated 28.11.1987 and subsequently sub-division record has been prepared indicating the retainable land and surplus land declared separately. After completing the requisite formalities as stipulated under the provisions of the Act, a notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was published in A.P. Extraordinary Gazette No.133 dated 7.6.1990. Subsequently notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued to the declarant for handing over possession of the land. Since he has failed to hand over the land and after expiry of stipulated period, proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued by the third respondent directing the Enquiry Officer to take over possession of the said surplus land. Accordingly, possession of surplus land was taken over by the Enquiry Officer on 31.3.1992 and in turn handed over the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda mandal. Thus, the said surplus land to an extent of 1826.72 sq.mtrs. is vested with the Government land, which is free from all encumbrances. Further, out of the said land, an extent of 760 sq.mtrs. of vacant land has been proposed for allotment to the Hyderabad Mathur Kayasthas Education Society and the Government has allotted the said land to the society vide G.O.Ms.No.358, Revenue (UC.II) Department dated 10.3.1998. The third respondent has filed a separate counter explaining the ground position. It is stated in the counter that a combined sketch of the sub-division record showing surplus land and retainable area in respect of T.S.No.15 to an extent of 1826.72 sq.mtrs. and 1000 sq.mtrs. respectively to each of the declarants K.R.Sachdev and H.R.Sachdev in C.C.Nos.E1/ 1868/76 and 1869/76 respectively was prepared and accordingly after completing required formalities draft notification under Section 10(1) and draft declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act were issued and the same were published in A.P. Gazette No.143 dated 3.10.1988 and 73 dated 23.3.1992 respectively and subsequently notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued to the declarant to surrender surplus vacant land to an extent of 1826.70 sq.mtrs. and proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued on 30.12.1997 and Enquiry Officer was directed to take over and hand over possession of surplus land to the Mandal Revenue Officer Shaikpet on 12.3.1997. The declarants brother A.Haneef filed Writ petition No.23359 of 1998 against District Collector and others claiming the land of H.R.Sachdev i.e. writ petitioner and to change sub-division record. Hence the office of the third respondent was not in a position to pass award proceedings under Section 11(8) of the Act. It is further stated that the declarant has not chosen to file the sketch at the time of issuance of 10(5) notice and hence the surplus land was already taken over and handed over and absolutely vested with the Government by virtue of publication of draft declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act. The question of change of sub-division sketch of petitioner’s choice at this juncture cannot be considered and more over no such representation dated 14.9.1999 was received by the office of third respondent. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for petitioner Mr.C.Hanumantha Rao strenuously contended that as soon as declaration is filed and surplus land was decided, the sub-division sketch ought to have prepared by the respondents and that could have solved the problem. Whereas, the respondents have not sub-divided the land and allowed anti-social elements to occupy the land, which is sought to be retained by the petitioner. It is the right and choice of the petitioner to surrender the land whichever he likes. He further contends that as of today, the entire land has been assigned in favour of third parties. When asked, the learned Government Pleader could not produce before the Court the record as to how many people were allotted with house site pattas in the land of the petitioner either in the retainable area or in the surplus area. It appears, the retainable area of the petitioner was also assigned in favour of third parties, thus depriving petitioner’s right to enjoy 1000 sq.mtrs. of retainable area after surrendering the excess land of 1826.76 sq.mtrs. Once the petitioner filed declaration and was declared as surplus land holder, the respondents ought to have allotted the retainable area of 1000 sq.mtrs. in his favour after sub- dividing the land. On the other hand, the said land was allotted to third parties. This approach made by the respondents is nothing but atrocious, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of the Act, equity and good conscience. The said action of the respondents is highly depreciable and deserves to be condemned. Under the provisions of the Act, petitioner is entitled for the retainable area of 1000 sq.mtrs. of his choice. Petitioner was not issued with any notice before sub-division as required under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. On verification of the records, it was found that the sub-division records were directed to be prepared twice on the basis of reports submitted by the Enquiry Officer. At one point of time, the retainable area was identified, but when it was occupied by others, again sub-division records were directed to be prepared. It appears that no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner before doing sub-division of land on the spot. Further, the office of the District Collector, Hyderabad addressed a letter to the Government Pleader (Assignment), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in Lr.No.11/5715/98 dated 17.6.2002, which reads as under: “Sub: Land – Hyd. – Sy.No.387 of Shaikpet (vg) – W.P.No.4615/2000 and batch – filed by K.R.Sach Dev and others – Joint inspection by S.o., ULC and Collector, Hyderabad – Regarding. Ref: Your Letter No.W.P.No.4615/2000/Rev/(A) dt.11.6.2002. With reference to your letter cited, I and Special Officer and Competent Authority, inspected the land in question on 17.6.2002. During inspection we found that out of total extent of 1827 sq.mtrs. of surplus land surrendered by Hari Sach Dev an extent of 960 sq.mtrs. of land is vacant and in the remaining extent some portion is covered by houses belonging to Weaker Section known as Sanjay Gandhi Nagar slum and some more extent is covered by a C.C. road leading into the above slum. The retainable area to an extent of 1000 sq.mtrs. is covered by C.C. Road and part of the land is covered by the buildings constructed by 3rd parties. Further on the Northern side of the above land, the total extent of 1826.72 sq.mtrs. of surplus land is covered by weaker section houses who were given house site pattas in the year 1995. These house have been existing since last 35 years, as per the petition of Hari Sach Dev dated 10.10.1985 (copy enclosed). In the land to an extent of 1000 sq.mtrs. retained by K.R. Sach Dev major portion is covered by C.C. road and some portion is covered by the Houses of adjacent land holders as well as by weaker section houses belonging to above slum. Under the above circumstances, the slum dwellers who have been staying since last 35 years can’t be evicted and shown alternate site and the inhabitants are also not willing to such proposal. As far as the vacant surplus land available, out of the surplus land surrendered by Hari Sach Dev an extent of 760 sq.mtrs. was allotted to Kayastha Educational Society and in view of the above litigation 760 sq.mtrs. of land proposals for alternate site in favour of Kayastha was already submitted to the Government and it is under process. The above facts may be appraised to the Court”. Under those circumstances, the District Collector, Hyderabad District is directed to depute an Officer, not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer, to conduct spot inspection of the subject land within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order; 1) To identify the surplus land and the retainable land of the petitioner and draw a sketch/map. 2) What was the area of the surplus land allotted to others. 3) Whether any land is still vacant as on date. 4) If there is any vacant land is available, the same shall be allowed to be occupied by the petitioner as retainable area. 5) If no open land is available, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall identify the retainable area and the District Collector shall hand over the same to the petitioner by vacating the illegal occupants, if any. 6) If no such land is available, the respondents shall invoke land acquisition proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act, as the petitioner was deprived of his retainable land of 1000 sq.mtrs. illegally. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date:13.8.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4615 of 2000 .8.2009