A.Ravi Shankar Prasad v. The Prl.Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department & Ors.

As per Section 53 of U.L.C. Act, all the transactions are null and void, till the land owners files declaration before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. As per the above Memo the U.L.C. clearance is required for the layout approval in the Guttala Begumpet village. Therefore, you are hereby called upon to show-cause as to why the draft layout approval issued vide reference 2nd cited should not be cancelled and withdrawn. Since, the site under reference is declared as ‘Core Area’ for which the U.L.C. clearance is required. Your reply should reach the undersigned within 15 days failing which action will be taken to cancel the draft layout approval. The petitioner submitted explanation on 7-6-1999 disputing the contention that ULC clearance is required. The petitioner also contended that as per Government Orders vide G.O.Ms.No.733, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 31-10-1988 the land in the peripheral area stands exempted from the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & the explanation was under consideration, Regulations) Act,1976.

While apprehending that the third party interests would be prejudicially effected, he filed the present writ petition challenging the show-cause notice and for a consequential direction to the respondents to release a final layout in respect of the land in Survey No.10 of Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. This Court admitted the writ petition on 19-7-1999 and passed interim orders on the same date in W.P.M.P.No.18182 of 1999 staying all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice. A counter affidavit is filed opposing the writ petition. Though the submission of application for the layout and the grant of tentative approval of the layout are not denied, it is stated that after the Draft layout was released, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Memo No.18927/UC-II(2)/97-3, Revenue, dated 20-11- 1997 wherein Madhapur and Guttala Begumpet Villages are shown as falling within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration to which G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31-10-1988 is not applicable, therefore, the impugned show-cause notice was issued proposing to cancel/withdraw the layout approval given to the petitioner.

It is also alleged that the petitioner has not completed all the development works and requested for extension of time on two occasions in May and November, 1998. The extension was granted to the petitioner to complete the balance of works and in spite of that the petitioner failed to complete the works. It is further stated that as per the conditions of the layout, unless and until final layout approval is granted, the petitioner is not entitled to sell away the plots and, therefore, the petitioner has violated the conditions of layout by selling the land to third parties. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He placed reliance on Section 32 of the Act. The learned counsel also placed reliance on an unreported judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.9478 and 9485 of 1999, dated 28-7- 2000 in support of the contention that the HUDA has no authority to cancel the layout.

According to the learned counsel, in the event of non-completion of the developmental works, Urban Authority has to issue a notice to the Developer to provide the required amenities and on failure to do so, the Authority itself has to carryout the development works. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for HUDA, submits that the writ petition against a show-cause notice is not maintainable and that the HUDA is justified in issuing the impugned show-cause notice. It is now axiomatic that a writ petition ordinarily would not lie against a show-cause notice. A reference may be made to State of U.P. v. Shri Brahma Datta Sharma and this Court in Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling v. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, K.Veerabhadrudu v. Spl. Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare. As the writ petition is filed at the stage of a show-cause notice, this Court at present is not inclined to decide the question whether the HUDA has any power or authority to cancel the layout at the initial stages.

It would be appropriate if HUDA considers this question also in proper perspective. As the petitioner had already filed explanation on 7-6-1999, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent-HUDA to pass appropriate orders in the matter, after giving opportunity to the petitioner or petitioner’s counsel of being heard. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner may approach the fourth respondent with a copy of this order. It shall also be open to the petitioner to file additional explanation along with necessary material, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J.) 20-07-2004. Msr. // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Prl. Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The Special Officer and Comptent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad. 4 The Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Paigah Palace, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. 5 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 6 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. 7 The Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.