A.Vijay Bhaskar Reddy v. The State of AP., rep by its Secretary (Revenue ) Secretariat, Hyderabad & Ors.

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent authority in issuing the following proceedings viz a) Rc.No. J/6142/76 & 6146/76 dt: 22-03-1995 (Orders under Section 8(4) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 on the file of 2nd Respondent b) Final Statement issued under Section 9 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 relating file No. B2/6142/76 On the file of the 2nd Respondent including notification under Section 10(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and the notification under Section 10 (3) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. c) Notice under Section 10 (5) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 dt: 06-11-2002 d) Proceedings under Section 10 (6) in relation to proceedings No. J/6142, 6146/76 as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.HARENDER PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO : 20998 of 2008 Between: 1 B.Chinna Narsimha Reddy S/o. Yella Reddy R/o. Plot No. 43, Annapurna Nagar, Bawdangpet, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad. 2 G.Malla Reddy S/o. Late Krishna Reddy R/o. Plot No. 43, Annapurna Nagar, Badangpet, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad. 3 D.Narsimha Reddy S/o. D.Malla Reddy R/o. Jaffarkhanpet Village, Kalwa Srirampur Mandal, Karimnagar District. 4 D.Sudhakar Reddy S/o. D.Venkat REddy R/o. H.No. 10-22, Plot No. 166 & 167, H.M.T. Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary ( Revenue ), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent authority in issuing the following proceeding viz., a) Rc.No. J/6142/76 & 6146/76 dt: 22-03-1995 ( Orders under Section 8(4) of Urban Land ( Ceiling & Regulation ) Act, 1976 ) on the file of 2nd Respondent b) Final statement issued under Section 9 of Urban Land ( Ceiling & Regulation ) Act, 1976 relating file Nos. B2/6142/76 and B2/6146/76 on the file of 2nd respondent including notification under Section 10(1) of Urban Land ( Ceiling & Regulation ) Act, 1976 and the notification under Section 10(3) of Urban Land ( Ceiling & Regulation ) Act, 1976 c) Notice under Section 10(5) of Urban Land ( Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 Dt: 06-11-2002 d) Proceedings under Section 10(6) in relation to proceedings No. J1/6142, 6142/76 as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation ) Act, 1976, Urban Land ( Ceiling & Regulation ) Repeal Act, 1999, Violative of Principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.HARENDER PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO : 21006 of 2008 Between: 1 N. Nandanandan Reddy S/o. N. Hari Kishan Reddy R/o. H.No.16-2-141/4, Malakpet, Hyderabad. 2 P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy S/o. P. Rama Chandra Reddy R/o. Flat No.308, Janapriya Paradise, Ashok Nagar, Hyderaabad. 3 P. Govardhan Reddy S/o. P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy R/o. Flat No.308, Janapriya Paradise, Ashok Nagar, Hyderaabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer and Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent Authority in issuing the following proceedings viz., a) Rc.No.J/6142/76 & 6146/76 dt.22-03-1995 (Orders Under Section 8(4) of Urban Lnd (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976) on the file of 2nd Respondent. b) Final statment issued Under Section 9 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 relating file Nos.B2/6142/76 and B2/6146/76 on the file of 2nd Respondent including notification Under Section 10(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and the notification Under Section 10 (3) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. c) Notice Under Section 10(5) of Urban Land (Ciling & Re- gulation) Act, 1976 dt.06-11-2002. d) Proceedings Under Section 10(6) in relation to proceed- ings No.J1/6142, 6146/76. as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, Urban Land (Ceiling & Rgulation) Repeal Act, 1999, violative of principls of natural justice and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.HARENDER PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO : 21008 of 2008 Between: 1 T. Janardhan Reddy S/o. Late Papi Reddy R/o. H.No. 9-6-64, Durga Bhavani Nagar Street No.3, Santoshnagar Colony, Hyderabad. 2 R. Balvanth Reddy S/o. Mutyam Reddy R/o. H.No. 6-6/4, Annapurna Nagar, Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 G. Mukunda Reddy S/o. Govind Reddy R/o. Flat NO. 404, MS Block-II Old MLA Quarters, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. 4 T. Raja Mahendar S/o. T. Narayana R/o. Plot No. 105, Satakshi Apartments, Kartikeya Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P., rep by its Secretary (Revenue ) Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,. Nampally,Hyderabad 3 The Tahsildar,Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent authority in issuing the following proceedings viz., a).Rc.No.J/6142/76 & 6146/76,dated 22.3.1995 (Orders under section 8(4) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976) on the file of 2nd respondent b.Final statement issued under section 9 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation )Act, 1976 relating file Nos.B2/6142/76 and B2/6146/76 on the file of 2nd respondent including notification under section 10(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation), Act, 1976 and the notification under section 10 (3) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation ) Act, 1976 c).Notice under section 10(5) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation),Act, 1976 dated 6.11.2002 d).Proceedings under section 10(6) in relation to proceedings No.J1/6142, 6146/76 as being arbitrary,illegal, contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation )Act, 1976 Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation), Repeal Act,1999 violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.HARENDER PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners feel aggrieved by the orders dated 22.03.1995 passed under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, and the consequent proceedings thereon. One Sri A. Penta Reddy held fairly large extent of land in Sy.Nos.117, 118, 139 and 143 at Badangpet Village of Ranga Reddy District. The Village is within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. Therefore, said Penta Reddy filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. His son by name, A. Somi Reddy, also filed declaration in respect of the part of the land. A provisional order under Section 8(1) of the Act was passed by the second respondent on 30.07.1979, holding that the declarant is liable to surrender an extent of 1,88,610.00 square meters of land by treating it as surplus. Sri Penta Reddy filed his objections on 29.08.1979. An order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed only in the year 1985 to the effect that the declarant held an extent of 1,68,375.70 square meters of land, in excess of ceiling limits. Consequential proceedings under Section 10 of the Act were also initiated subsequently. While the petitioners in W.P.No.20992 of 2008 represent the family of the declarant, those in the other writ petitions are said to be transferees of the land. They contend that the very order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act is nonest, since it was passed after the death of the declarant, without bringing the legal representatives on record. They contend that the proceedings, which are null and void in the eye of law, cannot give rise to the rights in favour of the Government nor can they defeat the rights of the petitioners. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit narrating the various steps that have been taken place ever since the declaration was filed. The counter-affidavit is silent as to the date of death of the declarant. It is stated that the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act was despatched to the known address and it was returned with an endorsement that ‘the party is found absent continuously for seven days’. A reference is made to the further proceedings under Section 10 of the Act. It is also stated that the possession of the land was taken on 04.05.2006. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the declarant died on 18.02.1987 and the same was, in fact, taken note of by the respondents themselves as is evident from the note file. He contends that the order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed and despatched in the name of a dead person and it cannot give rise to any valid rights. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment, on the other hand, submits family members of the declarant participated in the proceedings at various stages and the order under Section 8(4) of the Act and subsequent proceedings were issued to their knowledge and with their participation. The proceedings under the Act commence with the filing of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The actual determination of the rights of the declarant takes place under Section 8 of the Act. A provisional determination is made under Section 8(1) of the Act and the same would depend on the outcome of the orders to be passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. Unless the aggrieved party files an appeal and the appellate authority modifies under Section 8(4) of the Act, it would be competent for the authority under the Act to take further steps under Section 10 and 11 of the Act. One important aspect of the matter is that since the Act is expropriatory in nature, every step must be taken with meticulous care and strict compliance must be ensured. In the instant case, the second respondent passed a provisional order under Section 8(1) of the Act on 30.07.1979 after processing the declaration submitted by Sri Penta Reddy. On receiving the same, the declarant submitted his objections on

29.08.1979. The second respondent, however, slept over the matter for more than one and half decades. It was only on

22.03.1995 he proceeded to pass an order under Section 8(4) of the Act. He appears to have reeled under the impression that everything remained static ever since the objections were submitted on 29.08.1979. The declarant died on 18.02.1987. The petitioners have secured a copy of the entire note file running into about 30 pages, by filing an application. At page 20 of the note file, in paragraph 85, it is mentioned that the death of the declarant was brought to their notice. However, no steps were taken to bring the legal representatives of the declarant, on record. It is also important to note that the factum of the death of the declarant was taken note of some time in November, 1989. The order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed six years thereafter. Still it was proceeded as though the declarant was alive, so much so, the order was addressed to the declarant i.e., Sri A. Penta Reddy. Any doubt that exists in this regard stands clarified with the averments in the counter-affidavit. The relevant portion reads as under: ‘After due enquiry under Section 8(4) of the Act and final statement was issued on 22.03.1995 determining the surplus area to an extent of 1,68,375.70 square meters in Sy.Nos.117,118 and 139 of Bandangpet village, Ranga Reddy registered post District and sent acknowledgment due. The postal authority returned the unserved cover with an endorsement that ‘party continuous 7 days not found returned to sender’. The notice served by affixture in the conspicuous place.’ for service by It was not even mentioned that the declarant died, much less, any efforts were made to bring the legal representatives on record. Time and again, this Court and various High Courts held that an order under Section 8(4) of the Act in the name of a dead person is a nullity and it cannot give rise to any consequences. It has already been mentioned that the provisions are expropriatory in nature and the Court must ensure strict and absolute compliance with the provisions thereof. Once it has emerged that the impugned order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act is a nullity, the further proceedings under Sections 9,10 and 11 of the Act cannot be sustained in law. Even assuming that any semblance of possession was taken on the strength of such orders, it does not bind the parties nor cannot effect the rights of the parties. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petitions are allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:01.04.2009