THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 633 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per N.V. Ramana, J) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 06.08.2009 passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing O.P. No. 1970 of 2008, filed by the appellant herein, under Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking to grant him permission to sell the petition schedule property belonging to his minor son namely Parikshit Pittie, to third parties. The appellant herein is the natural father of the minor child by name Parikshit Pittie. He filed the present O.P. before the Court below, stating that the petition schedule property admeasuring 1841.68 sq. mtrs., bearing No. 8-2-545, situated at Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, stands in the name of his minor son and that though it was originally declared as surplus land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act (for short ‘the Act’), but subsequently, the Government, vide G.O. Ms. No. 1064, Revenue (UC- IV) Department, dated 02.08.2007, exempted the land from the provisions of the Act, and thus the petition schedule land vests in his minor son Parikshit Pittie. He further stated that the petition schedule land being open land and situated in prime high valuable area, it has become difficult to protect the same from encroachment, and thus instead of retaining the same, it would be in the interest of the child, if the same is sold when there is demand for the land, and the sale proceeds thereof are kept in fixed deposit, in the name of minor child. The appellant, therefore, sought permission to dispose of the petition schedule property, in the interest of minor child, at the best possible price and invest the amount in the name of the minor child for his exclusive benefit. Before the Court below, in spite of publication of notice as to filing of present O.P. by the appellant and calling for objections from all concerned, no objections were received. Thereupon, the appellant himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The Court below, upon consideration of the evidence on record, held that it was not established that the petition schedule land belongs to the minor child Parikshit Pittie, and further held that the petition and the deposition of the appellant as P.W.1 were silent as to what is the necessity to sell the petition schedule property and what would be the evident advantage to the minor, in case the property is sold, and accordingly dismissed the petition, by the order under appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred. As per the directions of this Court dated 09.08.2010, the petitioner has taken out notice, by way of paper publication, calling for objections from all concerned, and filed proof of service thereof. However, no objections are received by this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. According to the appellant, the petition schedule property stands in the name of his minor son and that though it was earlier declared as surplus land, subsequently, the Government, in the light of the guidelines issued in G.O. Ms. No. 456, dated 29.07.2002, has granted exemption, vide G.O. Ms. No.1064, dated 02.08.2007, exempting the petition schedule land from the purview of the provisions of Chapter-III of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. Though the Court below, in the absence of copy of G.O. Ms. No. 456 dated 29.07.2002 being filed by the appellant, held that the petition schedule land cannot be said to be held by the minor child Parikshit Pittie, the fact remains, G.O. Ms. No.456 dated 29.07.2002, is only a government order, whereunder certain guidelines have been issued for exempting the excess land held by landholders/declarants up to three times of the ceiling limit, and it has no relevance to decide as to whether the petition schedule property stands in the name of minor child. A copy of G.O. Ms. No. 1064 dated 02.08.2007, which is filed along with the present appeal, makes it clear that by invocation of the provisions thereof, the petition schedule property was exempted from the provisions of Chapter-III of the Act, on the application made by the appellant herein on behalf of his minor son and the consequent recommendations made by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad. That being the purport of the G.O., we are of the considered opinion that the Court below has committed an error in holding that in the absence of copy of G.O. Ms. No.456, dated 29.07.2002, the petition schedule land cannot be said to be held by the minor child Parikshit Pittie. A perusal of the record also reveals that the appellant, after dismissal of the present O.P., has filed copy of G.O. Ms. No. 456 dated 29.07.2002 before the Court below along with a review application and sought review of the order under appeal, but the Court below dismissed the said application and refused to review the order under appeal, on the ground that two essential elements of necessity and evident advantage to the minor are silent in the case. A perusal of the copy of the petition in O.P. No. 1970 of 2008 and the deposition of appellant as P.W.1, would indicate that the appellant has clearly stated that as the petition schedule land is open land, it is becoming difficult to protect its possession, and considering the fact that it may be encroached because some prime lands in and around the area were encroached, and as the land is situated in prime high valuable area, it would be of advantage to the minor child, if the same is sold, and the sale proceeds invested properly in the name of minor child. As the appellant has categorically spelt out and deposed about the necessity to sell the petition schedule property and the evident advantage that would be accrued to the minor child by the sale of the property, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below, in spite of such categorical assertions, has wrongly held that the appellant did not state about the two essential elements of necessity and evident advantage to the minor child, and thus committed an error in dismissing the O.P. and further refusing to review the order passed in the O.P. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below has not viewed the matter from right perspective and erred in dismissing the present petition filed by the appellant. The order under appeal, thus, needs to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the present O.P. filed by the appellant is allowed. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ___________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 22nd November, 2010 IBL