IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.21103 of 2008 Between: Ch. Leela Kumari, W/o. R. Narsi Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 37, H.No. 8-2-293/174/A/24, B.N. Reddy Colony, Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (UC.IV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Nampally, 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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) declaring the action of the respondent authorities in insisting the petitioner to pay the amounts under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008 vide Lr.No.E1/7607 to 7609/76 dated 09.09.2008 as arbitrary, illegal, violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same; and b) declaring that the petitioner is not holding surplus lands under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.21103 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the notice dated 09.09.2008, directing the petitioner to ﬁle an application in terms of G.O.Ms.No.747, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 18.06.2008, for regularization of her plot, otherwise she will have to face eviction, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and to declare that the petitioner is not holding surplus lands under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (“the Act” for brevity). The petitioner states that she purchased plot No.37, admeasuring 650 square yards, situated at Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, under a registered sale deed dated 31.03.1993. Thereafter, after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, she constructed a house therein, which was numbered as H.No.8-2-293/174/A/24. She further states that the Government have issued G.O. Rt. No. 783, dated 22.05.1993, granting relaxation of sanctioned layout and zoning regulations in respect of the houses from 8-2- 293/174/A/1 to 8-2-293/174/A/33, which also includes the house of the petitioner bearing H.No.8-2-293/174/A/24. While so, the third respondent issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to get her plot regularized under G.O.Ms.No.747 or to face eviction. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the regularization is only for the individuals, whose lands have vested with the Government and against whom proceedings under Section 10 (3) of the Act have been taken, and since the Government had already granted relaxation of sanctioned layout and zoning regulations in respect of the house of the petitioner, which was constructed after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the provisions of the Act are not application to the subject plot. He further contends that since no proceedings under Section 10(3) of the Act were passed nor possession was taken from the petitioner till date, the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. Since the plot purchased by the petitioner, was said to be part of surplus land, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned notice, directing the petitioner to ﬁle an application for regularization of her plot, else action would be taken for her eviction. The impugned proceedings is merely a notice, and if according to the petitioner, the plot purchased by her, does not form part of the surplus land, she is at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the respondents by submitting her reply to the impugned notice. If the petitioner submits her reply to the notice, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the plot in question. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ (N.V.RAMANA, J) 25th September 2008 Note: Issue CC forthwith B/O RRB