SMT. PYLA AMMAJI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 5th respondent to refrain and close the newly formed road in a private property of the petitioner in Plot No. 14 to an extent of 325 square yards in Survey No. 7/ 3A2 situated at Madhavadara Village, Visakhapatnam until paying compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensatin and Transparency in Land Acquisitin, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 30 of 2013 pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No. 3 to file counter affidavit and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY(SC FOR GVMC)

2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

3. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA

4. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)

5. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 RRR, J W.P.No.7065 of 2017 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner had purchased 325 Sq.yards of land in Sy.No.7/3 of Madhavadara Village, Visakhapatnam District, by way of a registered deed of sale, dated 30.06.1990, registered as Document No.5353 of 1990. This deed of sale was obtained by the petitioner after obtaining necessary clearances, under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. This clearance was given by the Special Officer-cum- Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Visakhapatnam, by way of proceedings bearing SR No.26/717/90/B2, dated 29.03.1990.

2. It appears that the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, in relation to the vendor of the petitioner, were subsequently completed and certain lands were declared to be excess lands. With a view to buy peace with the Government, the petitioner is said to have moved an application, under G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002, for regularization of her plots. It is also stated that various other plot holders who were similarly placed, had also moved applications, under G.O.Ms.No.455, for regularization of their lands. Though, the possession and title other applicants were regularized by way of G.O.Ms.No.183, dated 19.02.2008, the petitioner’s plot was not regularized. At that stage, the Municipal Corporation laid a road through the land of the petitioner without following due process of law and without acquisition of the property on the ground that the land belongs to the Government. 4 RRR, J W.P.No.7065 of 2017

3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, in laying the road through the land of the petitioner, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the land in question along with the adjoining land, which was vacant excess land of the vendor of the petitioner, had been taken over by the Government and the said land had also been allotted to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), under G.O.Ms.No.5013, dated

19.12.1980. Thereafter, applications had been made by various persons, under G.O.Ms.No.455 for regularization of their land. The Government, after verification of their status and possession of the land, had regularized the said possession and title of the occupants of the land, by way of G.O.Ms.No.183, dated 19.02.2008. It is also stated that the earlier allotment of 7722.68 sq. meters of land in favour of VUDA, under G.O.Ms.No.5013, dated 19.12.1980 was also withdrawn. The counter affidavit further states that since the possession of the said land had already been taken and handed over to M/s.VUDA in the year 1980 itself, the proceedings, under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, had been confirmed and the petitioner cannot claim any title to the land. It is further contended that the application of the petitioner is a further proof of fact that she does not have any title over the land, by virtue of the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings and that she cannot claim any right over the land, without the land being regularized in her favour under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.455. 5 RRR, J W.P.No.7065 of 2017

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would contend that no proceedings, for taking possession of the said land, had been issued, at any stage, and the petitioner had remained in possession of the said land since the date of purchase of the said land. The learned counsel would contend that the fact that the Government had regularized the plot holders owning the land adjoining the land of the petitioner is sufficient proof that no possession had been taken. The learned counsel would further submit that in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which came into effect in the State of Andhra Pradesh from 30.03.2008, no claim can be made by the Government over the said land.

6. Section 3 (2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, while repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, stipulated certain savings mentioned above. The effect of these provisions was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hari Ram1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering these provisions, had held as follows:

41. Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of Repeal Act 15 of 1999 on sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act, 1999 has expressly repealed Act 33 of 1976. The objects and reasons of the Repeal Act have already been referred to in the earlier part of this judgment. The Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a statute 1 (2013) 4 SCC 280 6 RRR, J W.P.No.7065 of 2017 before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case.

42. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.

7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the question that arises before this Court is whether the possession of the said land had been taken over from the petitioner or not.

8. The respondents, while producing various documents, along with the counter affidavit, have not placed any document before this Court to demonstrate that possession of the land had been taken over from the petitioner, under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. Further, the regularization, under G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002, is permissible only if the applicant continues to remain in possession of the said land, under a registered deed of alienation or such other proof stipulated under 7 RRR, J W.P.No.7065 of 2017 G.O.Ms.No.455. In the present case, various plot-holders, owning adjacent plots of land, had made applications, under G.O.Ms.No.455, for regularization and their plots have been regularized. This is effectively an admission of the State that the possession of the entire extent of land was not taken by the State and only a paper decision appears to have been taken.

9. In such circumstances, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the Judgment cited above, makes it clear that the ownership of the land remains with the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation for the land that she had lost on account of the road widening by the respondent authorities.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings, under Act 30 of 2013, for grant of compensation to the petitioner, in relation to the land, which has been lost by her, on account of the road laid by the respondents. The said acquisition proceedings be initiated within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of this order and shall be completed within a further period of six (06) months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date:06.03.2026 MJA 8 RRR, J W.P.No.7065 of 2017 211 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7065/2017 Date:06.03.2026 MJA