IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 1342 of 2008 Between: 1 M.Vijayalakshmi Reddy, w/o M.Venugopal Reddy, R/o H.No.8-2-601/P/21, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2 M.Sandhya Reddy, W/o M.Koti Reddy, r/o H.no.8-2-601/P/21, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. (Bothpetrs.are rep.by their GPA Holder J.Radha Reddy, w/o late J.Sridhar Reddy, aged about 51 years r/o Plot No.53 and 54, Flat No.304, Gouri Shankar Residency, Kamalapuri Colony, Hyderabad.). .....PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh represented byits Principal Secretary, Revenue (urban Ceiling) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad. 3 Manne Venkata Ramana Babu, S/o M.Lakshmana Rao, r/o H.No.6-3-354/8/3, Hindinagar Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 4 Manne Kalpana, W/o M.Venkataramana Babu, R/o H.No.6-3-354/8/3, Hindinagar Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 5 N.Venkata Krishna Rao, s/o N.S.Rao, r/o Plot No.206, Vasanthnagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 6 N.Srilatha, W/o Venkata Krishna Rao, r/o Plot No.206, Vasanthnagar, Kukatpally, 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 a writ of mandamus or any declaring that the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.62, Rev. (UC.II) dated 21-01-2006 allotting land in Sy.Nos.12 and 13 in favour of respondents 3 to 6 during the pendency of the case of the petitioners in L.G.C.No.58 of 2005 on the file of the Special Court for cases under the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, is arbitrary and illegal being violative of eligibility criteria laid down in G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29-07-2002 and consequently set aside the same and direct the 1st respondent to act in accordance with law and allot the said land to the petitioners subject to such terms and conditions as the 1st respondent may impose and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 & 2.: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the respondents 3 to 6: Smt. Suvarna Kumari The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 1342 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed questioning G.O.Ms.No. 62 (UC.II) dated 21.1.2006 allotting land covered under survey Nos. 12 and 13, Madhapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district to respondents 3 to 6 herein, pending proceedings before the Special Court for Cases Under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in L.G.C No. 58 of 2005, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners of plot Nos. 12 to 17 admeasuring 1600 sq yards in survey Nos. 12 and 13, Madhapur village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 29.7.1995 from one M. Yadaiah represented through his General Power of Attorney Holder Mr Y. Jaihind Reddy. The petitioners allege that the respondents 3 to 6 have grabbed the subject land and questioning the same, the petitioners filed a case in L.G.C No. 58 of 2005 on the file of the Special Court for Cases Under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the respondents are actively pursuing the same. The petitioners further allege that suppressing the true facts and pendency of L.G.C No. 58 of 2005, the respondents 3 to 6 herein have submitted an application for regularization and got issued G.O.Ms No. 62 dated 21.1.2006 regularising the subject land in their favour. The petitioners contend that since the matter is sub judice before the Special Court for Cases Under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in L.G.C No. 58 of 2005, allotment of the subject land vide G.O. Ms No. 62 of 2005 in favour of respondents 3 to 6 is bad. Hence, the present writ petition. The writ petition was admitted by orders dated 12.2.2008. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 stating that one M. Shiva Raju has filed a declaration under section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act) and an enquiry was conducted wherein it is revealed that the land covered under survey Nos. 12 to 15 to an extent of Ac.3.09 cents was purchased by the father of the declarant, who during his life time and subsequent to the commencement of the Act, sold land to an extent of Ac. 1.29 guntas to one M. Yadaiah (who happens to be the vendor to petitioners herein). The respondents contend that since the sale was effected subsequent to commencement of the Act, it is null and void, as such the entire extent of Ac.3.09 guntas was taken into account and provisional orders dated 10.5.2005 were issued declaring surplus to an extent of 13060.68 sq meters while allowing 1000.00 sq meters under section 4 (1) (b) of the Act and calling for objections and since no objections were filed, final orders under section 8 (4) of the Act were issued on 17.6.2005 confirming the draft statement. It is also stated that with effect from 31.12.2005 the land vests with the Government and a gazette notification was also published. It is further stated that respondents 3 to 6 have purchased an extent of 1451.10 sq meters through registered sale deed dated 19.5.2000 and 18.5.2000 and established the link from the original pattedar and their names were also mutated in the municipal records vide proceedings dated 30.5.2000 and they have also paid the municipal taxes and electrical bills etc. It is further stated that respondents 3 to 6 are in possession of the subject land and after thorough verification, in terms of the policy guidelines issued under G.O. Ms No. 455 dated 29.7.2002, the claim of the respondents was regularized vide G.O. Ms No. 62 dated 21.1.2006. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.5 on his behalf and on behalf of respondents 3, 4 and 6 wherein it is stated, inter alia, that the predecessors of their respondents have purchased the land from one M. Yadaiah through his G.P.A. Holder Y. Jaihind Reeddy. Originally the plot Nos. 9, 10 and 11 were purchased by Smt. J. Sulochanamma vide Doc.No.8030 of 1995 dated 29.7.1995 and Plot Nos. 18, 19 and 20 were purchased by J. Kiran Reddy vide Doc.No.8031 of 1995 dated 29.7.18995, dt. 29.7.1995. It is further stated that all the plots were initially purchased by one family members and two of them have sold Plots bearing Nos. 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20 to their precedessors by name K. Sharada vide Doc.No.4980 of 1996 dated 27.5.1996 and to Sunder Rao vide Doc.No.3507 of 1996 dated 10.5.1996, who were husband and wife. They in turn sold the land to Smt. K. Shubha Ahuja and Sri K. Sunil Ahula, husband and wife, vide Doc.No.9454 of 1998 dated 14.10.1998 and Doc.No.9453 of 1996 dated 14.10.1998 respectively. It is further stated that respondents 3 and 4 purchased part of House bearing No.1-99/5/8 & part of H.No.1-99/5/9 with the boundaries which were existing then and as such since the date of purchase they and their predecessors were in actual physical possession of the property purchased from the absolute owner of the land. It is also stated that the contention of the writ petitioners that their sale deed is an earlier one is not correct. It is further stated that the question in the writ petition is as to whether the Government has passed orders in accordance with the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.455 or not and that the contention of the writ petitioners is that they were under bona fide impression that the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act does not apply to the application schedule land is not correct. It is further stated that the contention of the writ petitioners that these respondents should have disclosed about the pendency of the fictitious land grabbing case before the Government cannot even be considered as they have submitted application to the Government as they were in possession of the land in question, which is evident from the house numbers, electricity bills, electoral enumeration, payment of municipal taxes etc. right from 1996 and 2000 onwards. They came to know about the declaration given by the Government, declaring the land as surplus land by proceedings of the competent authority under ULC Act vide proceedings dated 10.5.2005 and Section 8(1) draft notification and final orders dated 17.6.2005. Hence they have applied to the authorities for regularization of the land which was in their possession by submitting applications along with requisite fee as prescribed by the Government in the G.O. It is further stated that the allegation of the writ petitioners that the impugned orders are contrary to G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.7.2002 is not substantiated as there is no mention even as to which clause of the G.O. has been violated. It is further stated that the said G.O.Ms.No.455 has been issued on the basis of the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 19344 of 1995 dated 3.2.1997 and the said G.O. has been issued for regularization of the possession of the person who is in actual physical possession of the land after receiving the specified amounts by allotting the land to that extent under Section 23 of the ULC Act subject to certain conditions, namely, (1) the land in question vested with Government under Section 10(3) of the Act is free from all encumbrances, (2) the allotment shall be subject to payment of amount to Government at the rates indicated separately for each agglomeration in Schedule-I to this order and the allotment shall be made only with respect to i) excess land in the possession of occupier (other than the excess land holder or his successors) where such possession is evidenced by a registered document of purchase from the excess land holder or person claiming through him/her regardless of the fact of such land being covered by a structure or not, ii) excess land in the possession of occupier (other than the excess land holder or his successors) on which there is already a structure, though the possession is not supported by any registered document of purchase. It is further stated that their possession over the land fits in to the conditions specified in G.O.Ms.No.455 and as the time stipulated in the G.O. was extended by six more months by issuing G.O.Ms.No.482 Revenue (UC.1) Department dated 12.4.2005 from 1.4.2005, the 5th respondent along with his wife applied for allotment of the land to them by paying requisite fee on 15.9.2005. The Government extended the time till 31.3.2006. The respondents 3 and 4 have submitted application to the competent authority on 1.10.2005, which is within the stipulated time, as extended from time to time. Thus, it is stated, the applications of respondents 3 to 6 to allot the land which is declared as surplus by the competent authority were in consonance with the terms and conditions of the G.O. and hence the competent authority has passed the impugned G.O. allotting surplus land in their favour by receiving stipulated fee as per the terms and conditions of the G.O. Hence, it is stated, that there is no infirmity or illegality in issuance of the impugned G.O. and that the Government after carefully going through all the primary documents which were submitted before it in proof of their possession over the land in Plot Nos. 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20 of S.Nos. 12 and 13 of Madhapur village has rightly passed the impugned orders allotting the land in their favour. The allegation of the petitioners that the impugned orders are passed after filing of L.G.C. and during the pendency of the L.G.C. even after the same is brought to the notice of the authorities is also refuted in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 to 6. In this regard it is stated that the petitioners have filed L.G.C. on 20.9.2005 i.e. after respondents 5 and 6 have filed the application before the competent authority. The L.G.C. was returned on 29.9.2005 with some office objections and the same was resubmitted by the writ petitioners only on 3.10.2005 i.e. after the respondents 5 and 6 have submitted their application before the competent authority to allot the land under Section 23 of the ULC Act. The L.G.C. was called on bench on 4.10.2005 and notices were directed to be issued on 6.10.2005. Notices were dispatched on 10.10.2005 and they have filed their vakalat on 17.11.2005, after receiving the notices. By the time of submission of the applications before the competent authority they were not even aware of the filing of the L.G.C. case by the writ petitioners and no notices were also issued to them. It is further stated that no cognizance of the alleged offence of grabbing was even taken as on the date of filing of applications by them before the competent authorities for allotment of the surplus land to them under Section 23 of the ULC Act. By that time all the primary documents along with requisite fees was also submitted to the competent authority by the respondents 3 to 6 and there was nothing left to the discretion of the respondents after the application is submitted to the ULC authorities. It is stated that the writ petitioners should have been prudent enough to file application before the authorities for allotment of the land which was in their possession than claiming the land which was in possession of the respondents 3 to 6 and their predecessors in title. Having failed to be so and having failed to prove their possession of the land which they are claiming to be their land on the basis of the sale deeds with Doc.No.8032 of 95 & Doc.No.8033 of 1995, the petitioners now cannot claim that the impugned G.O. was issued contrary to the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.455. It is further stated that the pendency of the L.G.C. will not have any impact on the applications submitted before the competent authority under ULC Act as stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.455 as the petitioners should have submitted application for allotment of the land under Section 23 of the ULC Act in their favour on the basis of their sale deeds and if they are in possession of any land. It is further stated that in fact even as per the terms and conditions of their sale deeds, as admittedly the lands are attracted with Urban Land Ceiling Act, the sale deeds themselves are void documents and they have only right to sue their vendor i.e. M. Yadaiah or Jaihind Reddy – his G.P.A. Holder. Hence, it is stated, the contention that the impugned orders are issued by suppressing the pendency of the L.G.C. is misconceived. It is stated that the lands covered by the sale deeds with document Nos. 8030 of 1995 and 8031 of 1995 alone were allotted to them and not the land covered by the sale deeds of the petitioners with Doc.Nos. 8032 of 1995 and 8033 of 1995 and that the boundaries are different and are not one and the same and hence the petitioners do not even have any locus standi to question the G.O. as they are not even affected parties. The respondents 3 to 6 further stated in their counter that the contention of the petitioners that they have come to know about the impugned G.O. only when a counter is filed in the L.G.C. is not true and correct. The Urban Land Ceiling authorities have initiated proceedings way back in 2005 itself by issuing provisional orders under Section 8(1) and draft notice under Section 8(3) of ULC Act vide Proceedings dated 10.5.2005 after recording the statement of the son of the original owner Sri M.Shava Raju s/o Late Nagaiah. It is further stated that the objections were called for from interested persons by issuing draft statement under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act and the ULC authorities were pleased to issue draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Act by orders dated 10.5.2005 and that the objections were also called for from interested public under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act by publishing notification in Gazette No.302 dated 26.12.2005 Part-II. As no objections were received by Special Officer & Competent authority under Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad, notification was published in the Gazette and a declaration under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act was published in the Gazette on 6.1.2006 acquiring the land in question. Thus, it is stated, that the land in question vested absolutely in the State Government and it is free from all encumbrances w.e.f. 12.1.2006. Thereafter the impugned orders were issued along with endorsement in C.C.No.F1/408/6(1)/2005 and F1/990/6(1)/2005 clearly stating that the land to an extent of 725.56 Sq. meters is in the favour of 5th respondent along with his wife the 6th respondent and an extent of 725.54 Sq. meters is in favour of respondents 3 and 5 in Plot Nos.9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20 in S.Nos. 12 and 13, situated at Madhapur village, Serilingampally mandal, Rangareddy District. This endorsement and the allotment is the conclusive proof of title of the occupancy over such excess land allotted. Thus, it is stated that respondents 1 and 2 have validly considered their applications and have passed the impugned G.O. as no cases were pending to their knowledge as on the date of application and that no cases were pending even as on the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.455. Hence, it is stated, the contention of the petitioners that the impugned G.O. ought not to have been issued as L.G.C. filed by them was pending cannot even be taken into consideration as the same was not even brought to the notice of the ULC authorities before the orders were issued and after the case was initiated. It is further stated that the allegation that the subject matter of L.G.C. has been allotted by respondents 1 and 2 is not correct as the subject matter as specified in column 10 of the Form-1 of L.G.C. is only Plot Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of S.Nos. 12 and 13 of Madhapur village and not the plot Nos. 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20 of Sy.Nos. 12 and 13 of Madhapur village. It is further stated that if at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the non-allotment of the land by ULC authorities in their favour, it is only as the petitioners have never applied for allotment of the land under Section 23 of the ULC Act even after the land has been acquired by the Government and has been declared as surplus. It is stated that the petitioners have to prove their own case by producing the documents for their plots and see allotment of the land covered by their Plot Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of S.Nos. 12 and 13 of Madhapur village and cannot claim or question the allotment of the land covered by Plot Nos. 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20 of S.Nos. 12 and 13 of Madhapur village in their favour. It is, therefore, stated that they have not grabbed the land of the writ petitioners and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as it is devoid of merits. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition and contended that due to suppression of truth by respondents 3 to 6, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 21.1.2006 regularizing/allotting the subject land in favour of respondents 3 to 6 herein and the said G.O.Ms.No. 62 was placed before the Special Court with a request to terminate the case since the application schedule land is surplus Government land and hence the title of the petitioners under the registered sale deeds from the original declarant does not subsist any longer. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allottees obtained G.O.Ms.No. 62 dated 21.1.2006 by suppressing the fact of pendency of the case before the Special Court to which they are parties and hence the same is liable to be cancelled. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Smt. B. Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Suvarna Kumari – learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6, submitted that G.O.Ms.No 62 dated 21.1.2006 has been issued on the application made by the respondents 3 to 6 towards the excess lands acquired by the State Government and under occupation of 3rd parties with a view to regularize the unauthorized occupation and the same was allotted under Section 23(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. It is further stated that the respondents 3 to 6 have paid the amounts prescribed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.7.2002 and that there is absolutely no suppression of facts as detailed in the counter affidavit filed by them and the writ petitioners without filing any application for allotment in time have approached this Court with vague allegations and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel by the learned counsel for the parties, we have once again gone through the entire material available on record carefully. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 455 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 29.7.2002 laying down guidelines for allotment of excess lands already with occupation of 3rd parties. The material available on record clearly discloses that there is no application made by the petitioners for allotment of the said land. In this regard, it is pertinent to look into Clause (a) to (d) 4 of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.7.2002, which read as follows: “4. The Government while keeping in view the observations of High Court and after careful consideration of the issue of occupation of excess land by third parties (i.e. other than the declarants/excess land holders or their successors) and taking into account all ground realities and the practical aspects of the problem and difficulties encountered in the strict enforcement of the law and bearing in mind the fact that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 is an expropriatory law, have, as a matter of policy, decided to allot the excess lands to such respective third parties in occupation under Section 23 of the Act, subject to the following conditions: (a) (i) The allotment shall be considered where the excess land already vested with Government under Section 10(3) of the Act free from all encumbrances and the excess lands that may so vest with them in future. (ii) In cases where the lands applied for allotment are not covered by any declaration filed, the competent authority shall get the statements filed, if so required under the Act by issuing notices under Section 6(2), and then take further action to determine surplus or otherwise. In case of declaring surplus, further action shall be taken up to the stage of vesting of surplus land in Government under Section 10(3) and only thereafter applications received for allotment in respect of such surplus lands shall be dealt with in accordance with these orders. (b) the allotment shall be subject to withdrawal of litigations filed either by the occupant of excess land, or the excess land holder, or any other interested person and pending before any Court or Authority relating to the excess land as on the date of this G.O. (c) The excess lands covered by Appeals/W.Ps/W.As/SLPs or any other suit or proceedings including land grab cases filed by Government and pending before any Court or Authority shall be considered for allotment if applied for under these orders only after such cases are