IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18635 of 2000 Between: 1 Anumula Kommalu S/o Late Sri A. Durgaiah R/o Waddepally, Warangal District. Rep. by their General Power of Attorney Sri Muttineni Madava Rao S/o Narayan Rao, through G.P.A. dt: 22-4-1981. 2 Anumula Saraiah S/o Late Sri A. Durgaiah R/o Waddepally, Warangal District. Rep. by their General Power of Attorney Sri Muttineni Madava Rao S/o Narayan Rao, through G.P.A. dt: 22-4-1981. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer and Competent Authority Urban Land Ceilings Warangal. 3 Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Rep. by its Vice-Chairman Hanumakonda, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.J.VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare that the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) would not apply to the lands in Survey Nos.868 and 869 of Waddepally Village, Warangal District. Heard Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the record. The petitioners claim that their father Sri Anumula Durgaiah purchased lands admeasuring Acs.3.07 guntas and Ac.1.33 guntas comprised in Survey Nos.868 and 869 respectively through sale deed, dated 08.07.1967; that these lands are irrigated under the Waddepally tank; that Warangal is one of the towns covered by the provisions of the Act and that the municipal limits and peripheral area of Warangal are notified as the Urban Agglomeration of Warangal. They admitted that the said lands fell within the Urban Agglomeration. They, however, pleaded that the provisions of the Act do not apply to agricultural lands and hence, the above-mentioned lands, which are not vacant and are agricultural lands, are not attracted by the provisions of the Act. They further claim that on the representations made by petitioner No.1 on 21.02.1980, respondent No.2 got the matter verified through the Special Deputy Tahsildar, who submitted a report on 15.06.1984 stating that the lands in both the survey numbers are being put to agricultural use and wet crops are raised. They also relied on G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988 wherein exemption from the application of the Act is provided in respect of land admeasuring Acs.5.00 within the peripheral area. While no counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.3 - Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioners have not filed the purported registered sale deed, under which, they are claiming right over the lands in question. It is averred that as per the Warangal master plan, lands in Survey Nos.868 and 869 are shown for use towards park and water supply/residential use and that the said lands, which were declared as surplus lands, were allotted by respondent No.2 to the answering respondent for the above mentioned purposes. The petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit controverting the above-mentioned allegations. Though the petitioners filed a copy of letter, dated 15.06.1984 purported to have been addressed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar to the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Warangal, which shows that the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 belonging to the father of the petitioners is the wet land being irrigated and the surrounding lands are used for wet cultivation, the same is not duly authenticated. Similarly, the alleged certificate purported to have been issued in the name of the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings on 01.10.1980 is also not duly authenticated. Moreover, in the face of the averment contained in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 that respondent No.2 allotted the lands in question to it for the purpose of developmental activity as per the master plan, the petitioners neither adverted to the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 under the Act nor questioned the orders passed therein. Hence, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioners. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 29.09.2000 is vacated, WPMP.No.23678 of 2000 is dismissed and WVMP.No.543 of 2003 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th JULY, 2008. kvni