'1 . Prashant K. Lahoti v. 1. Govemment of Andhra Pradesh

Judgment

1. 2 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its principal Secretary, Revenue (UC), Secrbtariat, Hyderabad The Speical Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad The District collector, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER t 4 The Tahsildar, Shaikpet at Banlara Hills, Hyderabad ..RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the Court may be circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of 'writ of mandamus declaring the Procgs'No E119131/76 and E11g132t76 dated 6 3'2006 under section 10(6) of-the Act in SyNo'129/55 of Shaikpet village, Road No'3, Banjara Hills' Hyderabad issued in the name'of Sri Sardar Balwanth Singh and Others as illegal' null and void' ' 1 IA NO: 'oF 2018 petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit flled in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file the Additional Affidavit along with the additional documents and receive the same IA NO :1 oF 2021 petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition ' the High Court may be pleased to take the present Additional Affidavit on record in the present Writ Petition' Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A'VENKATES}I' Sr' COUNSEL' REP' FOR SRI TARUN G.REDDY Counsel for the ResPondents: SRI D.V.CHALAPATHI RAO' GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court madethe following: COMMON ORDER i l ) HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.15746 and 15807 of2OO8 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both these writ petrtrons 1s intrinsically interconnected, they are taken up and heard togeth€r and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Writ Petition No.15746 of 2008, under Article 226 of L}:e Constitution of India, is hled by the petitioners, seeking the following relief: "...to issue an appropiate wit, order or direction more partta arly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring ttle Procgs. No.El/9131/76 and E1/9132/76 dated 06-03-2006 under Section 10(6) of the Act in Sy.No.129/ 55 of Stntkpet Viltage, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, tisued in th.e name of Sri Sardar Batuanth Singh & others as illegal, nutl and uoid....'

3. Writ Petition No.15807 of 20O8, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following re Iief '...to issue an appropiate urit, order or direction more porticuLorlg one n the naturd of Wit oJ Mandamus declaing the Procgs.No.El/9131/76 and E1/9132/76 dated 06-O3-2006 under Section 10(6) of the Act in Sy.No.129/ 55 oJ ShaikPet Village, Road No.3, Bonjara HilI:;, Hgderabad, issued in the name of Sri Sardar Balu)anth Singh & others as ittegal' nuLl and uoid.. . ."

4. Writ Petition No.15746 of 2008 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lis in these two cases. 2

5. The brief facts of the case are as follows

6. It is stated that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have purchased open lands admeasuring 434 sq.yards and g00 sq.yards, respectively in Sy.No. 129155 (old Sy.No.165) part of T.S.Nos.2,3 & 4, Ward No.tl, Block D', situated at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.47gg and 4Z9g of 2OOS dated

27.O7.2OO5 from their vendors i.e, Sayed Ale Hassan and 12 others (legal heirs of Syed Abdul Khader Saheb). lt is further stated rhat originally, the petitioners vendors father-Syed Shah Abdul Khader, was the pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.3.26 gts in Sy.No. 129/55 (old Sy.No.165) situated at Shaikpet and the said land was assigned new Survey numbers under the provisions of Andhra pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 vide T.S.Nos.2 to 57 Block D, Ward No.11, Shaikpet, and the land admeasurrng 2246 sq.mtrs which falls in TS.No.4, Block D, Ward No. 1 1, was recorded as vacant land in possession of Syed Abdul Khader Saheb. It is the case of the petitioners that the original owner r4ade an application for construction ahd the District Collector vide Letter No.Fa/986S/82 has granted NOC dated 19.01.1983 for the lands in Sy.No. 129155 as patta land. It is stated that after commencement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "ULC Act"), one Balwanth Singh and Sardar Devender Singh have filed statements in h ,... '/// -T/ 3 Form-I under Section 6(1) of the Act, declaring certain properties held by them in Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration viz., Premises bearing No.5- 1-318, admeasuring 106.59 sq.mtrs, situated at Gowliguda, Premises bearing No.l4-11-8O5/ f b 8O5/7 admeasuring

123.18 sq.mtrs situated at Shah Inayath Gunj, land aclmeasuring I2,809.O5 sq.mrrs in Sy.No. 129 ISS (old Sy.No. 165) of Shaikpet Village, Banjara Hills, Premises bearing No.8-2-1/13 admeasuring

555.11 sq.mtrs, situated at Punjagutta. It is further case of the petitioners that as per the enquiry report, out of the total tand admeasuring 3500 sq.yards held by Balwanth Singh in Sy.No.129/55, an extent of 2125.OO sq.yards was sold to Sardar Prahlad Singh on 24.12.1965, leaving the balance land to an extent of 1375 sq.yards. It is stated that declarant Balwanth Singh purchased another land admeasuring l4O2O scl.yards in Sy.No.l29l55 on 27.O7.1966. The entire area held by the declarant is 14O2O sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards i.e, 15395 sq.yards 0,282 | sq.mtrs). Acting on the said enquiry report, the respondent No.2 has issued proceedings No.El/9131 and 9t32l2OO4 dated 30. tO.2OO4 stating that after verificaLion of the draft statement under Section 8(1) and notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, determined the surplus area to an extent of 11,871 sq.mtrs in Sy.No. 129/55 (deducted tand to an extent of 1,000 sq.mtrs under Section (l)(b) of the Act) and directed thg.,fleclarant to file objections within 3O days. It is further ...- \ 4 case of the petitioners that the declarant Balwanth Singh while ltling draft statement in Form-l under Section 6( 1) of the Act, in CC No.E/9 131/ 1976 has categorically me ntioned that the land in Sy.No. 129/55 is under dispute. It is stated that the deciarations have been finalized based on the entries in the revenue records and Town Survey Land Records (TSLR), as well as the recitals in the sale deeds under which the declarant claimed to have purchased the lands in Sy.No. 129/55. However, the said sale deeds were already held to be invalid in law, as per the judgment rendered in Prahlo.d Singh us. Sgcd Ali Musa Roza and othersr wherein the title of the deciarant was specifically negatived. It is further case of the petitioners tl.at without taking into consideration of the said facts' the respondent No.2 vide proceedings No'E1/9131/1976 and' Ellgl32l1976 declared the land to an extent of 11,871 sq'mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 as excess land including the schedule propertlz owned by the petitioners in Sy.No. 129/55 computing the said land on the declaration of the Balwanth Singh' It is fuither case of the petitioners that the land in 7. Sy.No. 129/55 to an extent of Ac'3-26 gts is grabbed by Sardar Balwanth Singh and Sardar Prahlad Singh by constructing houses' whichwereassessedtotheMunicipalnumbers.Questioningthe I ' 199? (3) ALT 562 \ 5 said action of the declarants, it is stated that the vendors of .the petitioners instituted a suit vide O.S.No.331/ lggO on the file of Additional ChietJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking to grant decree of possession of the land admeasuring 2125 sq.yards. It is stated that the said suit was decreed on 15.01.1983 and questioriing the same, an appeal vide CCCA No.70 of 1983 came to be filed by Sardar Prahlad Singh against the petitioners vendors and the same was dismissed on 27.02.1997. Aggrieved by the dismissal of said appeal, the Sardar Prtahlad Singh filed LpA No.23 of t997 on the file of this Court and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 2a.O2.2OO2. The legai heirs of Sardar prahlad Singh filed S.L.p (Civil) No.23359 of 2OO2 on the file of Hon,ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.ll.2OO2.

8. It is stated that seeking implementation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.331/ 1980, Syed Ali Musa Rasa, and others (legal heirs of the original pattadar i.e, Syed Abbul Khader Saheb) frled E.P.No.67 of 2OO3 and the same was allowed vide order dated 29 .O3.2OO4 directing the judgment debtors to handover the possession and demolish the existing structures and in pursuance of the same, the possesSion was delivered to petitioners vendors on

18.02.2005. Questioning the same, a revision vide Civil Revision Petition No.2526 of 2OO4 was filed and_the sarne was dismissed by 6 this Court vide order dated 25.O4.20OS. It is stared that Sardar Prahlad Singh, filed E.A.No.13 of 2005 and the sarne was dismissed on L2.O4.2OOS. euestioning the same, the legal heirs of prahlad Singh filed CRp No.2699 of 2005 and the same was dismissed on 22.06.2005 as infructuous. It is stated that after the litigation attained hnaiity, the petitioners purchased the subject property of the writ petition under registered sale deeds vide document Nos.47gg and 4798 of 2005 dated 2Z .OT.2O05 from the tegal heirs of the original pattadar Syed Abdul Khader Saheb. Thus the petitioners are claiming that they are interested in the subject rands and effected by the impugned proceedings dated 06.03.2006 issued by the respondent No.2. Hence the writ petition.

9. On 22.OT.2OOg, this Court while admitting the writ petition, granted interim order in W.p.M.p.No.20399 of 2OOg directing both the parties to maintain status quoobtaining as on that date. 1O. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter affidavit on 08.09.2010 inter alia stating that the respondent No.2 has declared Sardar Balwanth Singh (died per L.Rs Smt Tripati Kaur and others) as surplus land holders to an extent of 11,g71 Sq.Mts. in Sy.No.129155 and issued orders under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, vide proceedings Nos.Et/9t31 /26 and E1/9132 /76, dt.8_O3_2OO6 directing the Enquiry Officer to take over possess.ion of surplus land a) J.-r-' I 7 and hand over the same to the jurisdiction ofhcer i.e, respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal. Accordingly the Enquiry Oflicer has taken over possession of the Iand covered by structures and open land and handed over the same to the Deputy Tahsildar,- Shaikpet Mandal, under cover of panchanama on 07 -05-2008 and since then the said land is in the possession of Government.

11. The respondent No.2 filed W.V.M.P'No.4894 of 201O on 23.Og.2OlO seeking to vacate the interim order dated 22.07 .2OOa passed by this Court in W.P.M. P.No.20399 of 2008. This Cotrt. uide order dated 15. 1 1.201o dismissed the said application, which reads as follows: "The petitioners claim to be lhe absolute outners of an extent of 434 sq. yds., and 8OO sq. gds., oJ land situated in SU.No.129/55 (revised Sg.No.165) patt oJ TS Nos.2, 3 & 4, Ward. No.11, Block 'D'' Shaikpet Village, Hgderabad. Theg clqim to haue purchased the satd land from tlle ortglnal owners, uiz., Syed Ate Hqssan and 12 others, under a registered sale deed. dated 27.O7.2OO5 utde document Nos.4788 of 2005 & 4798 of 2005. Earlier the title in respect of tle said land taa's stdted to haue been set up bA one Sardar Bqlwanth Singlu tlho allegedlg lost the title suit against the uendors oJ the wit petitioners. Tle impugned notice dated 6.03.2006 issued under Section 10 (5) of tle Urban Lond (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short'the Act') shous that enquiry was conducted utth reference to the holding of Sardar Baluonth Singh It is the ca.se ol tfle petitioners thqt the said person hnuing lost his title has nothing to do with lhe proceedings initiated. under the Act ond as s;rch the petitioners cqnnot claim to haue held excess land. This - Court white admitting the urit petition bg order dated 22.07.2008 in W.P.M.P.NI.2O399 of 2008 directed the parties to maintain status quo obtairung as on that dqA. TlLe petitioners clanm thot theg haue been in continuous possession and enjogment oJ the aforesaid land uthile the learned Gouemment Pleader stbmits that the surplus land uas taken possession bg the enqtiry olficer pursuant to the notice dated 6.03.2006, on 7.05.2O08 and therefore submits that the stcttus quo orders need. not be continued. I Prima facie, it appears tllat the proceedings under the Act were initiated uith reference to tLe claim of Sard@r Baluonth Singl\ who does aot appear to haue anAthing to do with the aforesaid land of the petitioners. In tLE counter affi.dauit fited, it has not been stated in whnt manner the possession u.ras taken ouer and from uthom. It does not euen rekr as,7o tuhether the possession was taken ouer under a couer of ang panchanama. Having regard to th,e same, I am not inclined to uacate the interim orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.2039? of 2005, doted 22.07.2008. AccordingLg, the inteim order is made absolute and *e W.V.M.P. ts dismissed. " L2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed additional counter aflidavit on 29 .IO.2O2| inter alia stating that Sardar Baiwanth Singh & Sardar Devdar Singh filed statements in Form-l under Section 6(1) of ULC Act, declaring the properties held by him viz., 7l H.No.S- 1-318, admeasuring 106.59 sq.mtrs situated at Gowliga, 2) l4-l1-8O5/ 1 to 8O5/7 admeasuring 123.18 sq.mtrs situated at Shah Inayath Gunj, 3) land admeasuring 12809.05 sq.mtrs in Sy.No. 129l55 (old Sy.No. 165) situated at Banjara Hills and 4l H.No.8-2- 1/B admeasuring 555.1 1 sq.mtrs situated at Panjagutta. It is further stated that declarant Balwanth Singh expired on 03.02.2004 leaving behind Smt. Tripat Kaur and four others as L.Rs. It is also stated that total land held by declarants is 14,083.92 sq.mtrs out of which an extent of 1,212.92 sq.mtrs is protected under Section a(l1) of Principal Act. The vacant land held by the declarant is 12,87 | Sq.Mtrs, of which he is entitled to hold an extent of 1,000 Sq.Mtrs only under Section +(l)(B) of the ULC Act, 1976, and thus an extent of I 1,871 Sq.Mtrs was declared as surplus and a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act was issued vide proceedings dated T I 9

30.10.2004. The legal heirs o[ the deceased declarant filed a letter dated 06.11.2OO4 expressing no objection to the proposed surplus land, leading to confirmation of the draft statement under Sections 8(a) and hnal statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act vide proceedings dated 10'11'2O04 The declaration under Section 10(1) wasissuedonoT.0I.2005andpublishedinGazetteNo.l6dated 20.01.2005. The final declaration under Section 10(3) was issued and published in Gazette No 27 dated O1'02'2OO5 Subsequently' notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 16'01'2006 directing the declarants to surrender the surplus land' Upon failure to comply' proceedings under Section l0(6) were initiated on O6 03'2006 and the Enquiry Ofhcer took possession of the land on 16 03 2006' which was foimally handed over to the Deputy Tahsildar' Shaikpet' under a is in cover of Panchanama on o7 05 2oo8' Since then' the possession of the Government' It is further stated that the subject land, forming part of the declarant's Form-l undcr Section 6(1)' is Sq'Mtrs' out of which part of the total declared extent o[ 14 1,2|2.92 Sq.MtrS was protected under Section 4(11), leaving 12,871 Sq.Mtrs as vacant land' tt is further stated that during the entire ULC proceedings, neither the petitioners nor their vendors' ltled any or objections. The sale deeds relied upon by the bearing document Nos'4788 arrd 4798 of 2005 dated were executed during the operation of the ULC Act' declaration petitioners, ,land 'Oa3'g2

27.O7.2005, 10 1976 and without obta.ining permission under Section 26, thereby rendering the transactions void under Sections 5(3) and lO(4) of the ULC Act. The petitioners thus have no locus standi to assail the ULC proceedings, which were concluded lawfully and possession was taken over prior to the enactment of the Repeal Act, 1999 and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

13. Considered the submissions of Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, for Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

14. Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P.No. 15746 of 2008 and petitioner in W.P.No. 15807 of 2OO8 (mother of petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.15746 of 2OO8l have purchased open lands admeasuring 434 sq.yards, 800 sq.yards and 1190 sq.yards respectively, in Sy.No.l29155 (old Sy.No.165) part of T.S.Nos.2, 3 & 4, Ward No. I 1, Block 'D', situated at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4788/2005, 4798 /2OO5 and 4797 /2005 dated 27.O7.2OO5 from their vendors i.e, Sayed Ale Hassan and 12 others (legal heirs of Syed Abdul Khader Saheb) and their predecessor-in-interest, who were absolute owners over the said property. It is submitted that when the disputes arose 7 with regard to the title over the property beionging to t-he . predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, a suit vide O.S.No.331 of l98O was instituted on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.O 1. 1983 and the matter was carried to this Court vide CCCA No.70 of 1983 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 27 .O2.2OO7 and thereafter, an appeal vide LPA No.23l 1997 was hled and the same was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated, 28.O2.2OO2. Challenging the same, S.L.P (C) No.23359 of 2OO2 was filed and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 2O.72.2OO2 and the litigation attained finality. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Enquiry Officer of the office of respondent No.2 in his report dated 13.09.20O4 stated that the declarant-Balwanth Singh purchased the land to an extent of 35OO sq.yards in Sy.No.129l55 (old Sy.No. 165) of Shaikpet Village from Agaiah S/o.Pochaiah vide document No. 1545/ 1965 dated

25.1O. 1965 and out of the said land, an extent of 2125 sq.yards was disposed of by the declarant to Sardar Prahlad Singh vide document No.3053/65 dated 24.12.1965 leaving the balance land to arr extent of 1375 sq.yards is in possession of Balwanth Singh. Subsequently, the declarant further purchased land adme asuring l4O2O sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 on 27.O7.1966 and the area covered by structures of third parties, roads and some open land. Hence tl^- allegedly held by the declarant is I4,O20 sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards = i5,395 sq.yards (12,871 sq.mtrs). While deducting the land to an extent.of 1O00 sq.mtrs under Section +(1)(b) of the Act, it was declared that the declarant holds excess land to an extent of 11,871.00 sq.mtrs in Sy.No. l29l55 (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village in excess of ceiling limit. It is contended that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the statutory stipulations and mechanically conducted the enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry report was confirmed by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings Nos.El/9131/2OO4 and. Ell9132l2OO4 dated 30'1O'2O04 'It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 06.O3.2006 under Section 10(6) of ULC Act declaring land admeasuring 11,871 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129/55 allegedly owned by Balwant Singh as excess land. It is contended that the property owned by the petitioners in Sy.No. 129 155 was erroneously declared as excess land in the proceedings. It is further contended that in the impugned proceedings, it was clearly stated that the area is covered by structures of third parties, roads and some open lands, which implies that the declarant is not in possession of the property as on the date of conducting enquiry by the Enquiry Officer and the excess landdeclaredbytherespondentNo.2isdifferentanddistinctfrom the propert5r purchased by the petitioners' It is further contended that as per the judgment in O.S.No.331/ 1930, it was declared that l3 the Sardar Balwanth Singh and Sardar prahlad Singh had no right over the property admeasuring 2l2S sq.yards in Sy.No.129/55 and findings recorded by the trial Court has attained finality with the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No.23359 of 2OO2. It is further contended that the respondents having found that the petitioner is in possession of the property, did not issue any notice as required 5 of the Urban Land under sub-rule (2) of Rule (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 (for short "ULC Rules") to the affected parties who are in possession of the property. Due to non_following of the mandatory procedure, any statement prepared under Section l0 of the ULC Act and publication of the notification and vesting of the land under Section 1O(3) of the ULC Act is invalid. Thus the learned Senior Counsel prayed this Court to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned proceedings.

15. Per contra, the learned Government pleader lor Assignment appearing for the respondents contended that after verification of the declaration hled under Section 6(1) of the ULC Acr, a draft notification under Section g(1) of the ULC Act was issued vide Proceedings dated 3O.1O.2004 and as no objections were received, a hnal statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act was prepared on 10. 1 1.2004 and thereafter, proceedings under Section 10(l) was in Gazette No. 16 dated issued on 07 .Ol.2OO4 and published J E t4

20.01.2005. Subsequently declaration under Section l0(3) of the ULC Act, was .issued on Ol.02.2OOS and the same was published in Gazette No.27 dated Ol.O2.2OOS and thereafter, notice under Section 1O(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 16.0l.2006 to the legal heirs of declarant i.e, Late Balwant Singh to surrender the surplus land to al extent of 1 187 t sq.mtrs within the stipulated period and when possession was not surrendered, Section 10(6) proceedings were issued on 06.03.2006 and possession was taken over under cover of panchanama on 07.05.200g. The learned Government pleader placing reliance on Section I O(3) of ULC Act, submitted that after publication of declaration under Section 1O(3) of ULC Act, the excess land vested with the Government, absolutely free from all encumbrances. It is further submitted that in the absence of frling any objections to the proceedings under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, neither the petitioners nor their vendors are entitled to question the proceedings under Section 1O(S) of the ULC Act or Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, which are consequential. . Since the possession was taken prior to -the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short "Repear Act, 1999") came into force, neither the petitioners nor their vendors or the declarants are entitled for benerrt under Section 3 of Repeal Act, 1999 adopted by the_then State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.t. 22.03.2008 vide G.O.Ms.No.6O3 (Revenue) (ucl) Department dated 22.04-2oo8. Thus the wrir petitions rrled by l5 the petitioners are misconceived and prayed for dismissal of the L6. In reply to the above submissions,, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would maintain that as per 'the proceedings dated 30.10.2004, the third parties are in possession of the excess land. It is further submitted that in implementation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.33 I / 1980, the Executing Court in E.P.No.67 of 20O3 has delivered the possession to the petitioners vendors on 18.06.20O5. It is also submitted that the respondents have not placed any record before this Court furnishing the particulars of the alleged panchanama. Since there is no proof, the contention of the respondents that they have taken physical possession of subject property cannot be acceptcd. It is further submitted that mere vesting of the land under Section l0(3) of the ULC Act does not confer any right to clanm de facto possession of the vacant land. It is further contended that since the State has failed to establish that possession of the vacant land was either voluntarily surrendered under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act or taken by way of forcible dispossession under Section l0(6), it is estopped from asserting any right over the subject property. Consequently, the landowner is entitled to claim the benefrt of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. It is further contended that it is settled prepositior-r of law that l6 mere paper possession is not suflicient to vest the land in the State and the same shall not divest the petitioners right and prayed for allowing the writ petitions.

17. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the respective counsel, it is necessary to examine some of the relevant provisions of the ULC Act, 1926. Section 2 of rhe ULC Act, deals with definitions and some of the definitions are extracted hereunder. (i) "person" includes an indiuid.ual, q fqmitA, a rt.m, a companA, or an association or body of individuals, whether incorporatecl or nlt; fi 'to hotd" tDith its grammatical uoLiations, in relation to ong uacant land means-- (t) to oun such land; or Ii, to possess such land as otaner or as tenant or as mortgagee or und.er an irreuocable polter of afioneA or under a hire_puichase agreement or partlA in one of tle satd capacities and parttg in ang other oJ the satd copacitg or capacities. Explanatiort-Where the same uacant land is hetd bA one person in one capacitg and bg another person in another capicitg, ihen, for the purposes of this Act, such land shall be d.eemed 6 be ield by both such persons.

18. Further, Section 3 of the Act, states that except as otherwise provided in the Act, on and from the commencement of the Act, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which the Act applies under sub_ section (2) of section 1. Section 4 of the Act prescribes ceiling limit of every person. Section 6 of the Act, which deals with persons t7 holding vacant land in excess of ceiling Iimit to hle statement, reads as under: "Sectiqn 6 - Persons holding vacant land in excess of ceiting limit to file statement (1) Euery person holding uacant land in excess 'oj the ceiting hmft at rhe commencement of this Act shall, within such period os mag be prescibed, file a statement before the contpetent aulhoity hauing jurisdiction specifying the locatio4 extent, ualue ond such other partia)lars as may be prescibed of all uacont lands and oJ ang other land on tahich there is a building, uLhether or not u.tith a duetLing unit therein leld by him (including the nature of his nght, t[tle or tnterest therein) and also speciJging the uacant lands utithin the ceiling limit which he desires to retain : Prouided that tn relqtton to anA State to uhich this Act applies in the first instance, th.e prouisions of this sub-section shall houe effect as if for the uords "Euery person who hold uacant land in excess of ceiling hmtt at the commencement of this Act", the uords, figures and lellers "Euery person uthich uocant ldnd in excess of the ceiling limit on or afler the 17th dag of February, 1975 and before the commencement of this Act and euery person hotding uacant land in excess of the ceiltng limtt at such commencement" had been substttuted,"

19. A conjoint reading of the definition of "person" under Section 2(i) of the ULC Act, 1976 and the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act makes it clear that any person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit must file a statement before the competent authority specifying the location, extent, and particulars of such lands, including the nature of the right or interest therein. The expression "person" includes individuals and entities holding such iand in various legal capacities, including as owner, tenant, mortgagee, under irrdvocable power of attorney, or under a hire-purchase agreement. In the present case, the declarants, while filing the statement in Form-l have categorically mentioned in Annexure-A that i-;=id l8 the larld in Sy.No. 129/55 (old Sy.No.t65) of Shaikpet Village as .the land is under dispute in High Court.. In the procee dings dated 30. 10.2004, it is stated that out of 3S0O sq.yards in Sy.No. l2g/Ss (old Sy.No.165) of Shaikpet Village purchased from Agaiah S/o.Pochaiah vide document No. 1545/ 1965 dated 25.10. 1965,.an extent of 2125 sq.yards was disposed of by the declarant to Sardar Prahlad Singh vide documenr No.3053/65 dated 24.t2.1965 leaving the balance land to an extent of 1375 sq.yards in possession of Balwanth Singh. Further, the declarant Baiwanth Singh has purchased land to an extent of l4O2O sq.yards in Sy.No. 129/55 on

27.07.1966 and the area is covered by structures ol third parties, roads and some open land. Hence the entire area held by the declarant i.e, l4O2O sq.yards + I3TS sq.yards = 15395 sq.yards (12871 sq.mtrs). Acting on the enquiry report, the respondent No.2 has issued proceedings Nos.Ell9131 and gl32/2OO4 dated

30.1O.2004 under section 8(l) of the Act observing that the total land held by the declarant is 14083.92 sq.mtrs out of which an extent of l2l2.g2 sq.mtr5 is protected under Section a(11) of the Act and the vacant land held by the declarant is 12,871.0O sq.mtrs, out of which he is entitled to held 1,00O sq.mtrs under Section a(l)(b) of rhe Act. Thus it was declared that ttre declarant holds the land to an extent of 11871.00 sq.mtrs in Sy.No. 165 (old), 129l55 (new) of Shaikpet Village in excess of ceiling limit. The case of the petitioners is that 7 l9 their vendors and their predecessor-in- interest Syed Abdul Khader Saheb is the pattadar of the land in Sy.No. 129155 (old Sy.No. 165) to an extent of Ac.3.26 gts and his name was recorded in the revenue records and the said Sy.No.129/55 was assigned new survey number under the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. When the disputes arose with regard to the right and titte over the land admeasuring 2125 sq.yards in Sy.No.129l55, a suit for possession vide O.S.No.331/ 1980 was instituted by the petitioners vendors claiming absolu te ownership and after contest, the said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 15.01.1983. Aggrieved by the same, Sardar Prahlad Singh filed CCCA No.7O of 1983 on rhe hle of this Court and after contest, the same was dismissed vicle judgment d,ated 27.O2.I997. Challenging the same, LpA No.23 of 1997 was preferred and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated

24.02.2022, wherein it was observed that prahlad Singh, who claims to have purchased the property from the Sardar Balwant Singh (the declarant) is not title holder of the land in Sy.No.129/55 (old Sy.No. 165) of .Shaikpet village and consequently, declared that the petitioners vendors and their predecessors-in-interest are the absolute owners of the suit schedule land and entitled for delivery of possession. The said findings have attained finality in view of the dismissal of SLP (C) No.23359 of 2OO2 vide orders dated 20. t l.2OO2. The petitioners vendors also hled E.p.No.67 of 2003 seeking N 20 execution of the judgment and decree dated lS.O1.l9g3 passed in O.S.No.331 of 1980. In execution proceedings, the possession of the land claimed by the petitioners i.e, suit schedule property i.e , portion of Sy.No. 129l55 (old Sy.No. 165), to an extent ot 2125 sq.yards our of 3500 sq.yards was delivered to the petitioners. The suit was initially decreed vide judgment and decree dated lS.Ol.l9g3. The proceedings emanated from the suit have attained finality by delivery of possession to the petitioners vendors. Even before issuance o[ the notification under Section l0(3) of the Act dated Ol .O2.20O5, the E.P.No.67 of 1993 was allowed on 29.O3.2OO4 for delivery of possession to the petitioners vendors. In pursuance of the 6rders passed in E.P, the possession of the property was delivered vide panchanama dated 18.06.2005. The respondents acting on the alleged declaration have issued notice under Section 1O(S) of the Act on 16.01.2OO6 for delivery of possession by the declarant who lost the title in civil battle before all the forums. Thereafter, it is stated that Section l0(6) notice was issued on 06:03.2O06 and the alleged possession was - taken over under cover of panchanama on 07.05.2008. The subject properties claimed by the petitioners were delivered to their vendors much prior to the issuance of the notices under Section 10(5) and 1O(6) olthe Act, in execution proceedings. A careful scrutiny of t}Ie declaration order reveals that the declarant is a stranger to the subject properties purchased by the petitioners 2l under registered sale deeds. Therefore, the respondents, while acting upon such a declaration, are not having any power to include the petitioners' lands as part of the declarant's holding or to declare them as surplus under the said proceedings. 2o. Further, it is seen from the record that except stating in additional counter afhdavit, the respondents have not proved the alleged taking over of possession of subject lands under Section 10(6) of the Act on 07.05.2O08. The sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 states that the draft statement shall be served together with the notice referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 8, on the holder of the vacant la4ds, and all other persons, so far as may be known, who have, or are likely to have, any claim to, or interest in the ownership or possession or both, of the vacant lands by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned. A perusal of the Proceedings Nos.Ell913i and 91,32/2OO4 dated 30.10.2004 issued by the respondent No.2 would manifest that no notice whatsoever has been issued to the persons interested found to be in possession in pursuance of the orders dated 29.O3.20O4 in E.P.No.67 of 2OO3. 2L. The Hon'ble Apex Court rn A.P. Electrical Eguipment Corporation us. Tq.hsild.ar and other9 observed as follows: ' zoz5 tNSc 2za 22 1t "41. The propositions of laLu gouerning the issue o;fpossession in contert with Sectiora 1O(5) and 10(6) respecfiuelA of the Act, 1976 read. with Sectton 3 of the Repeol Act, 1999 mag be summed up //t;.;,s: lll The Repeal Act, 1999 clearlg talks about the possession being taken under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) oJ the Act, 1926, as thc case may be. l2l It is'rr statutory obligation on the part of the competent authnritA or the State to tqke possessron s,ricflg as permitted in layu. I3l In co.se the possession is purpofted to haue been taken under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged to look into whether "taking oJ such possessron" is ualid or inualidated ot ang oJ the co nsideratio ns in I anu. [4] The possession enuisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only. [5] The mere uesttng of "land declored surplus'under the Act utithout resuming "de Jacto possession" is of no consequence and the ktnd holder ts entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1 999. [6] The requirement of g|ing notice under sub secfions (5) and (6) of Section 10 respectiuelg is mandatory. Atthough the uord "mag" has bqen used therein, get the word "mag" tn both the sub-sections should be utderstood (E "shalf because a Courl is obhged to d.ectde the consequences that the Legtslature tntended to Joltow from the failure to implement the requireme nt. n The mere uesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 1O utould not confer anV rtght on the Stqte Gouernment to houe de facto possession of the uacant land unLess there hrrs been a uoluntqry surrender of uacant Land before 18th March 1999. [8] The Slate hos to establish bA cogent euidence on record thctt there ho.s been a uoluntary surrender of uacant land or sunender and deliuery of peaceful possession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession znder sub-section (6) of Section 10."

22. In State of U.P vs. Hari Ram3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as follows: "39. Ttte mere uesting of the land under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 Luould not confer ang ight on the State Gouernment to haue de facto possession of the uacant land unless there has been a uoluntary surrender of ua.ant Land before 18.3.1999. State has to establish that 'etR 2013 sc ti93 /- - z) there has been a uoluntary sutender of uacanl land or surender and deliuery of peacefal possession under Sub-section (5) of Sectton 1O or forceful dispossession under Sub-section (6) of &ction 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land oluner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repedl Act. The Stqte Gouemment in this appeal could. not establish ang of those situations and hence the Htgh Court is right in holdtng thot tLLe Respondent is entitled. to get th.e beneftt of Section 3 of the Repeal Act."

23. "Any person" as defined under the ULC Act for hling declaration under Section 6, has to be read in conjunction with the holding of the vacant land, who owns land or possess as such land as owner or as a tenant or as a mortgagee or under any irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire-purchase agreemen t or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the said capacity or capacities. Admittedly, in the instant case, while hling declaration Late Sardar Balwanth Singh stated that "the land is under dispute". Further, in the Proceedings dated 30. lO.2OO4, it was recorded that the declarant Sardar Balwanth Singh disposed of an extent of 2l25 sq.yards in favour of Sardar Prahlad Singh vide registered sale deed vide document No.3053/65 dated 24.12.1965 leaving the balance land to an extent of 1375 sq.yards in possession of Balwanth Singh. It was also recorded that subsequently, the declarant purchased land admeasuring 14020 sq.yards in Sy.No. l29lSS on 2Z .O7 .1966 and the area covered by structures of third parties, roads and some open land. Hence the entire area allegedly held by the declarant is 14020 24 sq.yards + 1375 sq.yards = 15395 sq.yards (12871 sq.mtrs). While deducting the Iand to an extent of 1000 sq.mtrs under Section 4(l)(ti) of the Act, it was declared that the declarant holds land to an extent of 11,871.0Q sq.mtrs in Sy.No.129155 (old Sy.No. 165) of Shaikpet Village in excess of ceiling limit. tt may be noted that the respondent No.2 while computing the holding of the declarant has excluded the Iand admeasuring 2 125 sq.yards said to have been sold by the declarant Balwanth Singh to Sardar Prahlad Singh vide document No.3053/65 dated. 24.12.1965 leaving the balance of 1375 sq.yards which was in possession of Balwanth Singh. Further, the Sardar Balwanth Singh and Sardar Prahlad Singh were declared as nQt title holders over the land to an extent of 2125 sq.yards and the petitioners vendors rights have been conhrmed vide judgment and decree in O.S.No.331 of 1980. The findings recorded in the said judgment were confirmed in CCCA No.7O of 1983 vide judgment d,ated 27 .O2.20O7. The appeal hled vide LPA No.23l 1997 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 28-O2.2OO2. Challenging the same, SLP (C) No.23359 of 2OO2 was hled and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 2O.12.2OO2 and the litigation attained hnality' The ZOOS filed by the petitioners was allowed on E.P.No.67 -of 2T.O3.2OO4. Thereafter, the property was delivered to the petitioners vendors by the court Bailiff in E.P.No.67 of 2OO3 on 18.06.2005' The petitioners have purchased the property under registered sale deeds 2) bearing document Nos.4788/2OO5, 4798 /2OO5 and 4797 /2OOs d,ated 27.O7.2O05. The respondents except claiming that the properties vested in the State under Section 10(3) of the Act, have not issued any notice to the petitioners or their vendors before taking alleged pobsession nor made available anY record to establish that de /acto possession of the subject lands was taken over by following due procedure.

24. For the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned Proceedings Nos.El/9131/ 1976 and Ell9132l1976 dated 06-03-2006 issued under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, in respect of petitioners lands admeasuring 434 sq.yards, 8O0 sq.yards and 119O sq.yards in Sy.No. 129155 (old Sy.No. 165) part of T.S.Nos.2, 3 & 4, Ward No.1 1, Block 'D', situated at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, are set aside. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble-snt su.lov PAUL, The Acting chief Justice on this wednesday' / the Twenty.Third Day of April, TwoThousand and Twenty Five' / SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY DE UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, \ '1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue (UC) Secretariat, Hyderabad, Government of Telangana. ;

2. The Special Officer & Competent Authority' Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad' 3. The District Collector, Hyderabad. 4. The Tahsildar Shaikpet, at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 5. One CC to SRI TARUN G.REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6.TwoCCstoGPFORASISIGNMENT,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 2310412025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.15746 and 15807 of 2008 1 HL ST4 r4: , .: 0 2 r'lAY 2@5 t .oe SPATC i o ( z o .\ .ai+ ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS @I"Ci'J fr6