Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21
- Repeal Act, 1999
Judgment
Cause title
16 Shri Laxminarayana Devda, S/o. Ramlal devda, R/o. NS Road, Hyderabad. 17 Shri Bhagwandas Devda, S/o. Ramlal devda, R/o. NS Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS
AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Special Chief Secretary to Govt., Secretariat, Hyderbad. 2 The Commissioner of Land Reforms and urban Land Ceilings, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy for
Sri Harender Pershad Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: Counsel for Respondent No.3:
Sri M.S.Ramchandra Rao, Standing Counsel The Court made the following :
O R D E R:
At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
It is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of: a) the 1st respondent in issuing Memo No.19664/UC- II(2)/2003-2 dated 30-4-2005 in so far as it affects the rights of the petitioners: b) the 1st respondent in issuing Memo. No.67791/UC-II(2)/2001-7 dated 01-05-2003 in so far as it affects the rights of the petitioners; c) the 2nd respondent in passing the orders in C.Nos. Hyd/89,98 to 130/94 dated 21-12-94 in so far as it affects the rights of the petitioners; d) the 3rd respondent in passing the orders in C.No.11659 to 11688/76 and No.10775 to 10785/76 (wrongly mentioned as 11775 to 11785/76) dated 16-2-1994 in so far as it affects the rights of the petitioners; as arbitrary and illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; consequently set aside the same.
Heard Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Harender Pershad, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri M.S.Ramchandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Additional Special Officer and Competent Authority on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) was repealed with the adoption of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Repeal Act, 1999’) in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27-03-2008 and G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 22-04-2008, was issued and the same was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part-I Extraordinary No.207 dated 22-04-2008. It is further averred that the petitioners filed this writ petition questioning Government Memo No.19664/UC-II/2003-2 dated 30-04-2005 and that possession of the land has not been taken over under Section 10(6) of the Act and that hence, further action pertaining to the property covered by the writ petition will abate as per the provisions of the Repeal Act,
1999. Having regard to the above mentioned categorical assertions in the counter-affidavit, the writ petition deserves to be disposed of with the finding that all the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act and the orders passed against them stand abated. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.30591 of 2006 is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 2nd July, 2008
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.