HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITON NO. 22106 OF 2005 Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of February, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Sri Iqbal Mohd. Abdul Hadi and another Petitioner AND The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban land Ceiling, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. Respondent ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Land Ceiling. The petitioners herein are husband and wife. The first petitioner – husband purchased an extent or 669.5 Sq. Mts. under Registered Sale Deed document No. 286 of 1993 dated 23.12.1992 whereas the second petitioner – wife purchased an extent of Ac.669 Sq. Mts. under Registered Sale Deed document No.3673 of 1991 dated 3.12.1991. Thus the total extent of land purchased by both the petitioners is 1339 Sq. Mts. It is stated that after constructing a room over an extent of 54 Sq. Mts., as the said land is surplus as per the enquiry in proceedings CC No.E1/8491/76, wherein final statement under Sec. 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was issued on 28.6.1982, determining the surplus land out of which the petitioners have purchased the said lands. The government issued orders under G.O. Ms. No. 455 Revenue (U.C.I) Department dated 29.7.2002 for regularization of the surplus land in possession of the third parties. Accordingly, the petitioners have regularized the said extent of the surplus land. The only controversy involved in this writ petition is whether the husband and wife are separately liable to pay the regularization fee or both of them as one family are liable for such payment. It is not in dispute that under the provisions of the Act, the husband and wife shall be treated as one unit. According to Sec. 2(f) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulatioin) Act, 1976, the family in relation to a person means an individual, the wife or husband as the case may be, of such individual and their unmarried minor children. Admittedly, as the property is purchased by the husband and wife, both of them constitute only one family. The petitioner are accordingly directed to pay the fee as per RR2 of the schedule under GO Ms. No. 455 dated 29.7.2002 and to deposit the amount calculated at Rs.8.88,387/-. In fact the said amount was paid and regularization was also made. The petitioners submit that they are entitled for the refund of the said amount as clubbing of the land purchased by the husband and wife under two different sale deeds, cannot be treated as a family. As per the scheme of the Act and the G.O. Ms. No. 455 dated 29.7.2002 contemplate that the husband and wife constitute a family and, therefore, it cannot be said that different rates are applicable to the husband and wife and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief or refund of the deposited amount. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah February 24, 2011 MAS