Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 174 (AP)

M. Gouri Devi and Company v. Gundla Ramesh Babu

2004-02-13

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2004
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is a partnership firm. It claims to have purchased about Ac. 3. 00 of land in survey Nos. 17 to 23 of Girmajipet revenue village, part of Warangal town, through a sale deed, dated 1-2-1960. The petitioner contends that it submitted a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the act ). It also contends that initially an order under Section 8 (4) of the Act was passed declaring that the petitioner holds land in excess of ceiling limits and after remand by this court, a fresh order was passed on 24-4-1998 declaring that the petitioner does not hold any land in excess of ceiling limits. ( 2 ) THE petitioner contends that in the year 2002, it came to know about the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Warangal, dated 1g-8-1999, whereunder, certain entries were made in the revenue records in respect of the lands in Survey Nos. 20, 21 and 22. At the instance of the petitioner, the matter was taken up by the Mandal Revenue officer, who in turn has referred the matter to the District Revenue Officer for necessary orders. Through orders, dated 11-9-2002, the District Revenue Officer has set aside the order, dated 16-8-1999, passed by the mandal Revenue Officer. The petitioner contends that notwithstanding these developments, the Special Officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceilings, warangal, respondent No. 16 has issued individual proceedings, dated 6-12-2000, under Section 26 of the Act, in favour of respondents 1 to 15 intimating them that he does not intend to exercise the option to purchase the lands referred to therein. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings. ( 3 ) ON behalf of respondents No. 1 to 15, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the lands purchased by the petitioner under a sale deed, dated 1-2-1960, are different from those in respect of which the impugned intimations were given. It is also their case that the said proceedings do not have the effect of any adjudication and as such no interference is called for. ( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for revenue and learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 16. ( 5 ) THE petitioner challenges the individual intimations issued by respondent No. 16 to respondents No. 1 to 15. ( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for revenue and learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 16. ( 5 ) THE petitioner challenges the individual intimations issued by respondent No. 16 to respondents No. 1 to 15. These intimations are under Section 26 of the Act. Wnenever any person, holding vacant land within the ceiling limits in an urban agglomeration, intends to transfer the same, he is required under Section 26 of the Act to give a notice to the competent authority, of his intention to do so. On receiving such intimation, the competent authority is vested with a right to exercise an option to purchase the property within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the notice. It shall be open to the competent authority either to exercise the option to purchase the land or to intimate his intention not to purchase the land. In case, no such intimation is given within sixty days, it shall be presumed that the authority has no intention to purchase. ( 6 ) BY their very nature, intimations under section 26 of the Act do not have any bearing on the title or possession of an individual. While exercising the option to purchase the land or while intimating the intention of not exercising such option, the competent authority is not expected or entitled to adjudicate upon the title of the person, who issues such notice. By no stretch of imagination, the intimations given under Section 26 of the Act by respondent no. 16 can be said to have conferred or declared title in respect of the land. That being the case, the petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any detriment on account of such intimations. The rights of the petitioner remained in tact, notwithstanding the impugned intimations. ( 7 ) HENCE, the writ petition is disposed of declaring that the impugned intimations do not have any effect on the title or rights of the petitioner and as such there is no necessity to adjudicate upon the same. No costs.