IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21430 of 2000 Between: N.Krishna Rao, S/o Veeraswamy R/o 2-2-1137/8/4/A, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling and Competent Authority, Hyderabad. 3 The Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notices dated 29-07-1998 and 14-10-1998 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential relief of setting aside order dated 17-11-1982 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. The dispute pertains to an extent of 1,580 square meters comprised in plot Nos.4 to 7 situated in Survey No.102/1 of Nagole Village, Ranga Reddy District. The sole petitioner, who died during the pendency of the writ petition and in whose place his son is impleaded as petitioner No.2, was the owner of the above mentioned land having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 22-09-1965. The petitioner is one of the purchasers of the plots, who applied for sanction of layout to Nagole Grampanchayat. After leaving the area for roads and other common purposes, the petitioner was left with 1,580 square meters. The petitioner filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) and an order was passed under Sections 8(4) and 9 of the Act on 17-11-1982 by respondent No.2, wherein he declared that the petitioner holds surplus land of 580.26 square meters. The application filed by the petitioner for exemption under Section 20(b) of the Act was rejected through Government Memo dated 04-07-1986. The petitioner filed a review petition in view of G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 14-02-1977 by which the Government employees were permitted to hold an extent of 500 square meters more than the ceiling limit of 1,000 square meters. The petitioner claimed that the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, recommended for grant of exemption and the Government has not taken any decision. Later, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31-10-1988 providing for owners of lands situated in peripheral areas of Hyderabad to hold up to an extent of 10,000 square meters of vacant land. The petitioner claimed exemption under the said G.O. According to the petitioner, as the said G.O automatically exempts the persons holding the lands in the peripheral areas up to the above mentioned extent, the respondents did not proceed further in pursuance of order dated 17-11-1982. On coming to know that respondent No.2 issued notice dated 29-07-1998 under Section 10 (5) of the Act directing the petitioner to surrender the excess land of 580.26 square meters, followed by order dated 14-10-1998 passed under Section 10(6) of the Act, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. All the above mentioned facts have been admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the Additional Special Officer-I in the Office of respondent No.2. It is, however, stated that the general exemption up to Acs.5.00 in peripheral areas granted by G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31-10-1988 was not existing at the time of passing of final order dated 17-11-1982; that after rejecting the petitioner’s request for exemption, the case was processed, action was taken under Sections 10 (1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act and that order under Section 10 (6) was passed. It is further stated that possession of surplus land was taken on 04-10-1999 and award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 16-11-2000. Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since on the own showing of the respondents, proceedings under Chapter-III of the Act did not get concluded in the case of the petitioner by the time G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31-10- 1988 was issued, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption provided under the said G.O. In support of his contention, he relied on G.O.Ms.No.217 dated 18-04- 2000 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Parchuri Ratnakar Rao v. State of A.P and others. I have perused G.O.Ms.No.217 by which G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31-10-1988 is amended by adding sub-clause (c) to paragraph 6, which reads as under: “These exemption orders shall not apply, where the Government have taken over the possession of the surplus land under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 from the declarants in all the five Urban Agglomerations, as on date 31-10-1988”. Admittedly in this case, possession was claimed to have been taken only on 04-10- 1999. Therefore, the benefit of exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733 is very much available to the petitioner. In Parchuri Ratnakar Rao (supra), the Division Bench held that, according to the decided case law discussed therein, exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733 is automatic notwithstanding vesting of surplus land in the Government if the proceedings under Chapter-III of the Act remained inconclusive by 31-10-1988, the date of G.O.Ms.No.733. In view of the discussion undertaken above, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31-10-1988 which is automatic and hence, the impugned notices and the impugned order are quashed. If possession was taken by the respondents, the same shall be redelivered to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th August, 2008 vrn