Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 666 (AP)

P. Ganeswar Rao v. Secretary

2003-05-01

BILAL NAZKI, G.YETHIRAJULU

body2003
G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are filed by the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 34303 of 1997 and 2249 of 1998 challenging the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 29-7-1999. ( 2 ) SMT. Sulakshana Bai is the owner of an extent of Ac. 40-14 guntas situated in S. Nos. 63, 71,72 and 73 of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is situated within the urban agglomeration of Hyderabad. In pursuance of the introduction of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ( the Act for brevity), which came into force on 17-2-1976, she filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act declaring that she is in possession and enjoyment of the above land as an agricultural land. On 18-12-1976 the Special Tahsildar submitted a verification report stating that the landowner is in possession of a total extent of 1,62,625 sq. mtrs. of land. On 20-1-1977 the urban land ceiling authorities issued notice under Sections 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. On 24-11-1984 the Special Officer and the competent authority passed an order under Section 8 (4) declaring that the land owner is in possession of the excess land to the extent of 1,62,625 sq. mtrs. Against the said order of the competent authority, Smt. Sulakshana Bai preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling Act and the same was dismissed on 27-6-1985 as devoid of merits. On 7-2-1985 the concerned authorities issued a notice under Section 10 (1) of the Act and it was published in A. P. Gazette No. 146 dated 2-8-1985 proposing to acquire the said excess land by the Government. On 2-8-1985 Section 10 (3) order was passed declaring that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and the land shall be deemed to be vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances w. e. f. the date so specified. On 26-8-1985 a notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued to the landowner requiring her to deliver the said land to the Government within 30 days from the service of the said notice. She acknowledged the said notice on 3-9-1985. On 26-8-1985 a notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued to the landowner requiring her to deliver the said land to the Government within 30 days from the service of the said notice. She acknowledged the said notice on 3-9-1985. After receipt of the said notice, Smt. Sulakshana Bai filed W. P. No. 10103 of 1985 questioning the order under Section 8 (4) of the Act dated 24-11-1984 and the order of the appellate authority dated 27-6-1985. On 18-4-1996 the said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court and subsequently on 9-8-1996 the concerned officer took possession of the land in question and the same was handed over to the M. R. O. , Saroornagar. After taking delivery of possession, the Government shifted the displaced persons under Nandanavanam Rehabilitation Project from the banks of river Musi and accommodated them in the surplus land taken possession by the Special Officer and the competent authority and houses are being constructed and the respective beneficiaries are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The land owner being aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench dated 18-4-1996 carried the matter to the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 17009 of 1996 on 9-9-1996 and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court at the admission stage itself. When the land owner failed in her efforts in getting the land exempted from the purview of the Act, the writ petitioners, who are the appellants herein, claiming themselves to be the purchasers of the land in question through sale-deeds for an extent of 300 sq. yds. each and for a consideration of Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. , filed W. P. Nos. 2249 of 1998 and 34303 of 1997 and they were dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 29-7-1999. The writ petitioners being aggrieved by the common order of the learned single Judge preferred these appeals challenging its validity and legality. ( 3 ) THE point for consideration is whether the writ petitioners are entitled for the relief of resumption of the land in question? Point: ( 4 ) IT is an undisputed fact that Smt. Sulakshana Bai was the owner of the land in question. The appellants-petitioners are claiming that they purchased the land in question independently @ 300 sq. yds. each in S. Nos. Point: ( 4 ) IT is an undisputed fact that Smt. Sulakshana Bai was the owner of the land in question. The appellants-petitioners are claiming that they purchased the land in question independently @ 300 sq. yds. each in S. Nos. 63, 71, 72 and 73 of Karmanghat Village, Ranga Reddy District. It is their case that they have purchased the said land during the years 1978 and 1979. They contend that they are the Central Government employees working in various organizations and as the owner of the land was declared as surplus landholder and as she obtained necessary clearance from the competent authority, they purchased the land bona fidely without knowing about the proceedings under the Act. They further contend that since the officials of the respondents are trying to dispossess them from the respective lands, they are before this Court for a declaration that the proposed dispossession is wholly illegal and arbitrary and to preclude the respondents from dispossessing them from the said lands. ( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the Government that the original owner Smt. Sulakshana Bai filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act before the competent authority and the said authority did not take any action so long as the owner was using the said land for agricultural purpose, but after coming to know that the owner parted with the land by making plots and sold to various third parties, the matter was re-opened and a fresh assessment was undertaken consequent upon the Master Plan coming into force. Finally the authorities in the order dated 25-11-1984 assessed the excess land held by Smt. Sulakshana Bai to an extent of 1,62,625 sq. mtrs. Though the land was resumed as a surplus land, subsequently the Government earmarked the same for distribution of house site pattas to weaker sections of the society and accordingly prepared plans for allotment of surplus land by making constructions, under housing project, to the weaker sections. It was further contended by the Government that the action in resuming the land is quite legal and valid and the same is in accordance with law. ( 6 ) THE appellants contend that the original owner was holding the land as agricultural land and sold the same to them as agricultural land only. It was further contended by the Government that the action in resuming the land is quite legal and valid and the same is in accordance with law. ( 6 ) THE appellants contend that the original owner was holding the land as agricultural land and sold the same to them as agricultural land only. They further contended that after sale of the said land to them only it became non-agricultural land and the same requires consideration. In the declaration Smt. Sulakshana Bai, the original owner, stated that the land was partly vacant and partly agricultural. In the statement given to the urban land ceiling authorities she mentioned that the land remained fallow since six years prior to that date. In the sale-deeds there is no mention that the land sold was agricultural land. The appellants concede that they purchased the lands for construction of houses, but contend that the land was sold only as agricultural land and therefore it cannot be treated as a surplus land of the original owner and the order is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) BEFORE answering the said contention, we would like to refer the writ petition filed by the original owner vide W. P. No. 10103 of 1985 against the order of the respondents declaring that she is in possession of the excess vacant land to the extent of 1,62,625 sq. mtrs. On 18-4-1996 a Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the said writ petition, at paragraphs 5, 6 and 8, observed as follows:. . The land, which was certified to be an agricultural land, when the Act came into force, could not continue to retain its identity as agricultural land even after its user was changed. It would not be treated as urban land so long as it was mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. When once the user was changed, it would become automatically vacant land within the meaning of Section 2 (q) of the Act. Under Section 6 of the Act every person holding land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act, is obliged to file a statement giving particulars of all vacant lands held by him. . . Under Section 6 of the Act every person holding land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act, is obliged to file a statement giving particulars of all vacant lands held by him. . . By virtue of the Explanation to Section 6 of the Act, when the land in question ceased to be an agricultural land it assumed the character of vacant land and therefore the owner was under a legal obligation to make a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the entire land was divided into small plots of 300 sq. mtrs. each and sold to several persons. From the nature of the use to which the land was put, there can be no doubt that it ceased to be an agricultural land. . . The authorities have reopened the matter not under Section 15 of the Act, but due to the change of user, which inevitably attracts Clause (ii) of the Explanation to Section 6 (1) read with Ss. 2 (q) and 2 (o) of the Act. ( 8 ) THUS, from a reading of the above, the Division Bench has categorically held that the land, which was certified to be an agricultural land, when the Act came into force, could not continue to retain its identity as agricultural land even after its user was changed. It would not be treated as urban land so long as it was mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. When once the user was changed, it would become automatically vacant land within the meaning of Section 2 (q) of the Act. The notices issued by the concerned authorities indicate that the land was converted into non-agricultural land and it was sold to various persons @ 300 sq. mtrs. each. The contention of the appellants that the original owner sold the land, which was used for agriculture, as agricultural land only cannot be accepted. The learned single Judge has rightly concluded that the plea of the appellants cannot be accepted. mtrs. each. The contention of the appellants that the original owner sold the land, which was used for agriculture, as agricultural land only cannot be accepted. The learned single Judge has rightly concluded that the plea of the appellants cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) SO far as the procedure adopted by the land ceiling authorities is concerned, it is seen from the record that the procedure prescribed under the Act was scrupulously followed, 10 (1) and 10 (3) notices were also issued declaring that the land in question is free from encumbrances and it is open for the Government to resume the land and accordingly on 9-8-1996 the appellants were dispossessed at the time of taking possession of the said land. The contention of the appellants-petitioners that they purchased the land under a bona fide impression that it is not attracted by the provisions of the Act was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge as the alleged purchases were subsequent to the Act coming into force and after the owner filing declaration before the competent authority. ( 10 ) IT was submitted on behalf of the appellants-petitioners that as they are the Central Government employees, the Government may consider allotting the said land to them instead of allotting the same to the landless poor. Rejecting the said contention, the learned single Judge rightly observed that it is exclusively under the domain of the State Government whether to consider their request for allotment of the land or not. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge except to hold that the concerned authorities have followed the procedure prescribed under the Act. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the certificate dated 27-9-1978 issued by the competent authority is clearly indicating that the land in question was an agricultural land, and therefore the order of the competent authority declaring the land as vacant surplus land is illegal and arbitrary. ( 12 ) IT is needless to say that when once the plea of the owner was not accepted to exempt the land from the purview of the Act, the sale deeds said to be executed by her in favour of the appellants cannot be rendered valid. ( 12 ) IT is needless to say that when once the plea of the owner was not accepted to exempt the land from the purview of the Act, the sale deeds said to be executed by her in favour of the appellants cannot be rendered valid. It was clearly mentioned in the certificate dated 27-9-1978 that the Act will not apply so long as the land is used for agricultural purposes only. When once it is divided into plots and sold for the purpose of house-sites to the third parties on any subsequent date, it lost its nature as agricultural land and became vacant land and therefore the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are attracted. ( 13 ) IT is the contention of the appellants that the owner of the land claimed that the certificate given by the competent authority is a certificate of No Objection. Therefore, they are put to irreparable loss by way of dispossessing them from the land though they purchased the land from the original owner. The appellants who are claiming themselves to be in possession of the land in question did not choose to come on record and agitate about their rights, if any, in the earlier proceedings. On the other hand, the record is establishing that they are not in possession of the land and they waited for so many years without fighting for their rights, if any, and the matter was decided by the Supreme Court at the instance of the owner of the land holding that she is not entitled for any relief. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that the land, which was taken possession from the owner was allotted to various landless people. ( 14 ) THE original owner of the land agitated about the same reliefs which the appellants as asking for. When once the rights of the owner are decided and reached finality, considering the request of the appellants-petitioners afresh amounts to reviewing the earlier proceedings. ( 15 ) IN the light of the above circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge dated 29-7-1999. We are therefore inclined to accept the view of the learned single Judge. ( 16 ) IN the result, the appeals are dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs.