IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 25357 of 2006 Between: M/s.Kashtopa Corporation, rep.by its partner Sunil Kumar Kamdar, H.No.5-8-56/57, Nampally, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary to the Government Revenue (UC-II) Department, secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus: i). declaring the impugned orders vide proc.No.H2/919/2005/H2/2645/76 dated 18.11.2006 of the Respondent- 2 as arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires void without jurisdiction violative of principles of natural justice and Art.14 of the Constitution of India and the same may be set aside; ii). costs be awarded to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent NO.2:Sri A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO Counsel for Respondents 3 to 44: Sri P.Krishna Reddy, Sri Ch.Purnachandra Rao and Sri K.Srinivas. The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri B.Mahender Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the first respondent, Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned Counsel for the second respondent and Sri P.Krishna Reddy, Sri Ch.Purnachandra Rao, and Sri K.Srinivas, learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 44. The petitioner seeks invalidation of the second respondent’s order, bearing reference No.H2/919/2005, dated 18.11.2006, on several grounds. The principle amongst which is: a) that the order impugned transgresses the power of the second respondent under Section 45 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”); b) that the order has been passed without a reasonable notice and opportunity to the petitioner. The facts leading to the impugned order have a long, chequered and meandering litigative career, all of which are not relevant for the purpose of this Writ Petition. To the extent relevant and material, the facts are, the petitioner filed a declaration under the Act in respect of specified extents of property in several survey numbers in Gachibouli Village, Ranga Reddy District. The declaration was filed by the petitioner on 05.03.2005. On 29.04.2005, the draft statement under Section 8(1) and notice under Section 8(3) of the Act were issued determining the surplus area in an extent of 2,10,003.028 square metres in survey Nos.35/p, 36, 45, 46, 47/P and 53 part and calling upon the declarants to lodge objections, if any. In a response dated 03.05.2005 to the notice dated 29.04.2005, the petitioner stated that he has no objection to the determination of surplus land. It would appear that according to the second respondent, the petitioner initially acquired by purchase, land in extent of Acs.190.17 gts., in Gachibouli village in several survey numbers, including Sy.No.50 through a registered document of the year 1964. Of this extent, an extent of Acs.73.03 gts., in several survey numbers excluding Sy.No.50, was delivered to protected tenants and certificates under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, were issued, including recording the names of such tenants in the P.T. register. On this assumption of the factual position, an extent of Acs.73.09 gts., was excluded from the computation of the petitioner-declarant’s holding. According to the second respondent an extent of Acs.60.00 in four survey numbers, including Sy.No.50, was also involved in litigation. On the above-mentioned premise, the second respondent by proceedings bearing reference No.H2/919/2005, dated 06.05.2005, excluded the extent of Acs.60.00 apart from the extent of Acs.73.03 gts. While computing the holding of the declarants, and held that the undisputed extent of Acs.57.14 gts., of land could clearly be computed to being within the effective control of the petitioner-declarant. After giving the petitioner the benefit of exclusion of a standard holding of 1000 square metres as legislatively enjoined and another extent of Acs.5.00 as available under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.2008, the second respondent by the order, dated 06.05.2005, determined the surplus holding of the petitioner liable to vest in the State, as Acs.52.14 gts., equivalent to 2,10,003.028 square metres, in the survey numbers already adverted to. Thereafter, the second respondent unilaterally and without any notice or opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner, in purported exercise of the powers available under Section 45 of the Act, passed orders bearing reference No.H2/919/2005, dated 24.11.2005. In this order, the second respondent recorded that lands in Sy.No.50 to an extent of 68,796.62 square metres were initially excluded from the computation of the petitioner’s holding in the earlier order, dated 06.05.2005 (on an assumption that they were involved in litigation); that this extent was found to be not involved in any litigation and therefore the above extent of land in Sy.No.50 is computed to the holding of the petitioner. On this reason recorded, the second respondent proceeded to issue an errata with regard to the revised computation of the petitioner’s holding. Aggrieved by the unilateral exercise of the second respondent qua the proceedings, dated 24.11.2005, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12751 of 2006, assailing the said order. By the judgment, dated 26.09.2006, the said writ petition was disposed of. The second respondent’s proceedings, dated 24.11.2005, was set aside. In setting aside this order of the second respondent, this Court observed that while Section 45 of the Act enables an officer or the authority, who passed the order, either on his motion or on an application received from the parties to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission at any time, the provision does not enable re-computation of the surplus vacant land in excess of the ceiling area or at least for inclusion of any vacant land in the final determination under Section 8(4) of the Act. Having observed this, the learned Judge further held that the State Government has power under Section 34 of the Act to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for correcting any illegality or impropriety in any order or proceedings passed under the Act. This Court also held that in any view of the matter, as the petitioner does suffer civil consequences as a result of the exercise of the second respondent’s power under Section 45 of the Act, the second respondent ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner. No such notice having been given, the order should be invalidated on the short ground of violation of fair procedure. Having quashed the order, the Court remitted the matter to the second respondent for de novo consideration, after considering all the objections of the petitioner and the party respondents therein, after issuing a notice to them. The Court also left open to the petitioner to raise all objections before the second respondent. After the initial misadventure involved in passing of the order dated 24.11.2005 the second respondent ought to have sensitized itself as to the minimum requirements of a quasi-judicial office and the minimum requirements of a fair procedure and what is comprehended by the expression “notice”. Instead, the second respondent issued a “notice” to the petitioner and other unofficial parties in W.P.No.12751 of 2006. This communication of the second respondent, dated 16.10.2006, is a classic illustration of irrelevance and ritualistic observance of Natural Justice and may usefully be extracted: “It is informed that the case is posted for personal hearing before the Special officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad on 27.10.2006 at 3.00 P.M. The following petitioners/respondents in W.P.No.12751 of 2006 are requested to be present in this office either in person or through authorized agent on the said date with all relevant documents.” It should have been obvious to any authority minimally trained and having a nodding acquaintance with administrative law principles and called upon to perform the functions of a quasi-judicial office that no decision involving adverse civil consequences could be made without a preceding fair notice and opportunity. The minimal requirements of fair procedure are a notice to persons potentially impacted by adverse civil consequences. The second respondent oblivious and fundamentally ignorant of this well-established administrative principles had earlier passed an order, dated 24.11.2005. That order was quashed by the judgment of this Court dated 26.09.2006, in W.P.No.12751 of 2006. The judgment clearly sensitized the second respondent to the settled principles and enjoined the second respondent to consider afresh only after issuing a notice to the petitioner and the other unofficial respondents in the writ petition. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the second respondent cannot plead ignorance of law or ignorance of the appropriate spectrum of administrative law involved in the issue. However, it is tragic that the second respondent chose to issue a “notice” dated 16.10.2006 that cannot be characterized as a “notice” even on flexible norms of law. It conveys nothing and informs the noticee nothing about the purposes for which they are called upon to a personal hearing before the second respondent on the stipulated date. In response to the above notice, the petitioner lodged objections on 10.11.2006, whereby the second respondent was specifically informed that his notice, dated 16.10.2006, was wholly vague and did not disclose the purpose, nor the provisions of law for and under which the hearing was scheduled. The second respondent was also informed and in clear and unambiguous terms that no guidance is available from the contents of the notice as would enable preparation for hearing by the petitioner, nor would enable submission of documents. In paras 5 and 6 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, the petitioner clearly alleges that the second respondent initially refused to receive the above objections and therefore the petitioner was compelled to submit written objections in the inward section on 10.11.2006 and even thereafter, he came to learn that the Presiding Officer of the second respondent had taken umbrage against the inward clerk for having accepted the objections. Despite having been sensitized to the vagueness and irrelevance of the communication, dated 16.10.2007, the second respondent did not consider it appropriate to retract his irrelevant “notice”. It could have rectified the fatal error of the notice, dated 16.10.2006 by issuing a notice, which confirmed to the requirements of fair opportunity. The second respondent was not so inclined, but proceeded to pass the impugned order. While the counsel for the respondents contend that the impugned order is factually correct in recording that no litigation is pending in respect of Sy.No.50, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend to the contra that there are many pending cases in respect of Sy.No.50 in the Supreme Court on the aspect whether the land in Sy.No.50 must be computed under the provisions of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and also between tenants and the petitioner. Whether any such litigation is pending is not a dispute properly within the province of this Court in this writ petition. A speculative exercise on relevant facts could have been avoided, if the second respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner intimating the proposal for re-computation of the petitioner’s urban land holding by including the land in Sy.No.50 into his holding. On such sensitization as to the purpose of the second respondent’s exercise, the petitioner would have been enabled to clearly respond to the appropriateness of the re-computation including in respect of the land in Sy.No.50, the character of the land, the pendency of any litigation in respect of this land as also regarding the jurisdictional limitations on the second respondent’s exercise under Section 45 of the Act. By the total irrelevance of the notice dated 16.10.2006, the second respondent denied the petitioner opportunity to respond and this the second respondent did despite the clear statement of principle in the judgment, dated 26.09.2006, in W.P.No.12751 of 2006 and despite the petitioner’s objections to the vagueness of the notice by his response, dated 10.11.2006. There are, therefore, no mitigating or redeemable features in the conduct of the second respondent. The second respondent appears to have proceeded to exercise power clearly oblivious to the requirements of law. Sri Krishna Reddy, Sri Ch.Poornachandra Rao and Sri Srinivas learned counsel representing respondents 3 to 44 passionately urge that these respondents had purchased small extents of property in Sy.No.50 from the petitioner during 1980 and have made applications to the State Government for regularization of their possession of this property in terms of a scheme of regularization formulated by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002. According to these respondents, the State Government is not processing their applications for regularization, in view of the uncertainty as to the nature of the land in Sy.No.50 qua the petitioner’s holding of the property in this survey number. Unless the property is computed in the petitioner’s holding and declared to be surplus, the regularization process under G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002, will not be available to respondents 3 to 44 is the sum and substance of these respondents case. The grievance of the non-official respondents even if true cannot legitimize the irrelevant procedure adopted by the second respondent in passing the impugned order, dated 18.11.2007. The trauma of respondents 3 to 44, if any, is a direct consequence of the repetitiously irrelevant process pursued by the second respondent and the extravagant procedure followed. The petitioner though presents challenges to the impugned order also on its merits and on the jurisdiction of the second respondent to exercise power under Section 45 of the Act, this Court is not inclined to go into those aspects in view of the fact that the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 18.11.2006 is unsustainable, on the short ground that it is passed without reasonable notice and opportunity to the petitioner. On this infirmity which is fatal, the conclusions recorded in the impugned order, dated 18.11.2006, must be considered the ipse dixit of the second respondent unilaterally arrived and without a participatory process involving the petitioner. The petitioner’s entitlement to such participatory process has been declared by the judgment, dated 26.09.2006 in W.P.No.12751 of 2006, to which the second respondent was a party. The second respondent denied the petitioner a meaningful participation in the decision making process leading to the impugned order, dated 18.11.2007. This order must, therefore perish and is accordingly quashed. As the order of the second respondent impugned herein, is the product of a wholly arbitrary process and an irrelevant notice, dated 16.10.2006, and despite sufficient intimation as to the procedural obligations of the second respondent, by the judgment dated 26.09.2006 in W.P.No.12751 of 2006, this Court considers it appropriate to impose costs on the second respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable by the second respondent within a period of four weeks. Of this amount, Rs.2,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner and Rs.8,000/- to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority. A copy of this order shall be marked to the Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., for sensitization as to the need for appropriate quasi-judicial training to officers before conferring quasi-judicial functions. It is however open to the appropriate and competent authority, forum or Court to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh and in accordance with law. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated:03.04.2008 Note:A copy of this order be marked to the Secretary, A.P.State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, for information. (B/o) GJ To 1 The Prl.Secretary to the Government, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (UC-II) Department, secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad 3.2CCs to the GP for Assignment. 4.2CD copies