IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6597 of 2000 Between: Yennu Pratap Reddy And Others ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh through Secretary, Government of A.P., Revenue Department and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY FOR MR G.SATYAVEER REDDY Counsel for the respondents: MR O.MANOHAR REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁeld for a writ of Certiorari to quash ﬁnal order in ﬁle No.D/4486/76 dated Nil-11-1999 and also memo No. 30298/UC(II)/93-6 dated 26-04-1997. The petitioners, who are the sons of Sri Yennu Komara Reddy, ﬁled the present writ petition, wherein they have, inter alia, averred that during the lifetime of their father, the respondents have not conducted any enquiry into the surplus land held by their family and no opportunity was given to their father or to them; that their father ﬁled an application in the month of July, 1985 for granting exemption under Section 20(1) (a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”); that the lands being agricultural lands they are exempted under the provisions of the Act; that according to a G.O issued by the State Government, the petitioners’ father was entitled for exemption of Acs.5.00 in peripheral area and that recently the petitioners came to know that the application ﬁled by their father for exemption was rejected by respondent No.1 vide his order dated 26-04-1997. The petitioners further averred that they were served with notice under Section 11(8) of the Act, wherein it is stated that the property vested in the Government is free from all encumbrances with eﬀect from 11- 07-1997 and ﬁxing the date for determination of compensation in respect of the excess area of 5,226 square meters in Survey Nos.42, 62 and 66 of Mylardevpalli, Tadband, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners further averred that before issuance of the said proceedings by the respondents, no enquiry was held and no notices were issued to them. The petitioners, therefore, ﬁled the present writ petition questioning the above mentioned two proceedings. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, it is averred as under: Sri Yennu Komara Reddy (father of the petitioners) ﬁled declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act declaring one-fourth share in the landed property comprised in Survey Nos.43, 62 and 63 of Mylardevpalli Village. After due enquiry, provisional orders under Sections 8(1) and 8(3) of the Act were passed on 06-04-1984 proposing to declare the declarant as surplus holder of an extent of 5,226.98 square meters in the above mentioned survey numbers and also by holding that the master plan reserved the land for institutional purpose and as such the said land was vacant land. The allegation that no enquiry was conducted was denied as incorrect. The declarant gave his sworn statement, which was recorded by the Enquiry Oﬃcer. A notice was served on one of his legal heirs i.e. Chandra Shekar Reddy on 10-04-1985 and order under Section 8(1) was served on the declarant through registered post acknowledgement due on 13-04-1984 and subsequent hearing notices ﬁxing the dates of hearing as 11-04-1985 and 01-07-1985 were also served on the declarant and acknowledged by him. On 02-07-1985, the declarant submitted a petition to exempt his lands under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act, without raising any objection as to the excess land proposed to be determined. Final order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed during the lifetime of the declarant. The application of the declarant for exemption was rejected by the Government on 26-04-1997 as the said land was required by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for public purposes such as community hall, library, park, play grounds, school etc and that after the passing of the said order by the Government, the case was processed further at various stages under Sections 10(1), 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act. Notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued and got served on Shankara Reddy, the son of the declarant (petitioner No.3), on 05-11-1997 directing him to surrender the surplus vacant land to the Enquiry Oﬃcer concerned within 30 days from the date of service of the notice. As the lands were not surrendered, the Enquiry Oﬃcer was authorized to take possession of the surplus land under Section 10(6) of the Act. The Enquiry Officer took over the surplus land of 5226.98 square meters and handed over the same to the nominee of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajendranagar through panchanama on 06-07-1999. Thereafter, the impugned notice to hold enquiry under Section 11(8) of the Act for ﬁxing the compensation has been issued. No reply-aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting these allegations in the counter-affidavit. A perusal of the record submitted by the learned counsel for the Special Oﬃcer and Competent Authority shows that order under Section 8(4) was passed on 12-07-1985 ﬁnally determining the excess holding of the declarant, and as the declarant’s application for exemption was pending, no further proceedings were taken out till its rejection on 26-04-1997. After rejection of the exemption application, Section 10(3) notice was issued on 11-06-1997 and Section 10(5) notice dated 22-07-1997 was served on 05-11-1997 on petitioner No.3, who is one of the sons of the declarant. From the above mentioned facts, borne out by the record, the plea of the petitioners that notice under Section 11(8) of the Act is issued without notice and holding proper enquiry into the proper determination of the excess vacant land held by the father of the petitioners cannot be accepted. As regards order dated 26-04-1997, rejecting the declarant’s application for exemption, it is stated in the order that the said land is required by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for public purposes such as community hall, library, park, play grounds, school etc., and on that ground the declarant’s application for exemption was rejected. Having carefully considered the reasons in the said order, I am of the view that the same does not suﬀer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While rejecting the request for exemption, the Government applied its mind and on the basis of the reasons, which are germane, the application for exemption was rejected. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 11th September, 2008 vrn