High Court · 1961

Judgment

(Per BPR,J) Having regard to the common and integrated questions as they arise in all these matters, and at the request of the counsel appearing on either side, these matters were taken up together for hearing and as well for disposal. Heard the learned Advocate General, Sri P.Sriraghuram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, K.Goverdhan Reddy, N.Sreedhar Reddy, M.Ratna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and Sri M.R.S.Srinivas for Mrs.D.Geetha, learned counsel for the respondent. In this writ petition the main challenge is against the orders passed by the respondent No.1, dated 28-10-1976 purportedly under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 determining the excess land in respect of the said writ petitioners and further to hold that an extent of 10,016 square yards of the land in plot No.129/45/D as being evacuee property.

Simultaneously, is the challenge against the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1570, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 19- 08-2005, where under they sought to allot the land to the respondent No.4, namely, the news paper publication known as the Andhra Prabha Publications. Briefly, the facts which almost remain uncontroversial, as claimed from both sides are that on 19 Khurdad 1339 Fasli the then H.E.H Nizam issued an Attiyat Patta in favour of Late Amoodi to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas in Sy.No.129 of Shaikpet Village. Again, another patta was issue on 25 Amardad 1340 Fasli to an extent of Ac.15.00 guntas in the same survey number. Further, the said Amoodi purchased the land an extent of Ac.3.13 guntas in Sy.No.129/30 under a Registered Sale Deed document No.2357/1964 on 11-12-1964, from the owner and pattedar Sri Shaik Abdullah.

Since some claims and disputes are being raised and alleging interference with the possession and enjoyment of the property by or on behalf of Sri Narasimha Swamy Temple, on direction by the then Collector, the original Attiyat patta granted by H.E.H, Nizam stated to have been produced before the Collector under a due acknowledgment, and thereupon, the entries were carried in his favour in the revenue records consisting of regular Pahanis, Setwar and Pothibohu and he has been paying the taxes up to the year 1985. In support, a tax demand notice dated 1st Shasriwr, 1339 Fasli and receipt therefor dated 11-11-1350 Fasli was pressed into service. On 23rd Khurdad 1350 Fasli , the Jubili Hills Municipality issued a letter to the Tahsildar granting permission to Amoodi for establishment of Brick Klins.

Similarly, the Tahsil Office of Serfheks granted a permission for such establishment of Brick Klins on 18-4-1350 Fasli and 25th Farwardi 1351 Fasli. Similarly, the letters issued during the period from 28th September 1961 to 11th July 1978 by the Assistant Agricultural Engineer and Assistant Director Industries and Federation of Sericulture and Government of Mysore, shows the establishment of Malbary Plantation and Hyderabad Silk Industry,

which was a first one of its kind in the then Hyderabad State known as Reshambagh, Amoodi Nagar, which was stated to have been inaugurated by the then Chief Minister Dr.Neelam Sangeeva Reddy. In pursuance of an enquiry conducted by Sundaresan Committee appointed by the Government in respect of the allotment of the area under Jubili Hills municipality and the report submitted, it was admitted that some of the allotments Phodi had not been done and recorded the occupants as encroachers and for suggesting for further Phodi to be done. The plan accompanying the said report showed the Amoodi land in red colour and that said Amoodi was in possession and the existence of Malbary plantation. Subsequently, as per correspondence of the Government at various points of time confirms the patta and possession of late Amoodi. However, having regard to certain disputes and the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C an order was passed in Misc. Case No.13/1961, dated 3-11-1961 directing the delivery of possession to late Amoodi by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In C.C.8818/1963 a criminal case was filed by one Mr.Chellappa alleging encroachment by late Amoodi, and the same was dismissed on 24- 6-1964. Later, the said proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C were referred to the civil Court under Section 146 thereof in O.P.No.26/1965, on the file of Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein a detailed enquiry was conducted allowing both sides to lead their respective evidence and ultimately as per the orders dated 29-2-1968, the title and possession of Amoodi was confirmed. However, a suit filed by one R.Bhaskar Rao in O.S.No.90/1968, on the file of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad claiming comprehensive relief of declaration of title was dismissed after the regular trial holding specifically that there exists no such Sy.No.129/45/D as claimed by said Mr.Bhaskar Rao, and there is no allotment in his favour or in favour of Taqyuddin or even Abdul Hassan, the vendor of said Bhaskar Rao. The Taqyuddin, who stated to have claimed an allotment in his favour. On further appeal in CCCA.No.122/1979, this Court as per the Judgment and Decree dated 3-8-1987 dismissed the same and confirmed that of the trial Court. The matter was carried further and got confirmed by the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal in L.P.A.No.99/1988, dated 7-6-1988. Again, an attempt was made by filing a review application in L.P.A.No.99/1988 seeking restoration, and as per the orders dated 2-11- 1995, the said review petition was allowed by restoring the appeal and the main appeal itself was withdrawn as per the orders dated 2-11-1995. In the meanwhile, the Government filed a case under the Land Grabbing Law against Amoodi for an extent of Ac.15-00 claiming under the T.S.Numbers only, where according to the owners, nothing was specifically pleaded as to the patta of Amoodi nor that of the exact corresponding numbers in the land revenue records as Sy.No.129/30, which is a private land, and yet the said land grabbing was allowed holding that Amoodi is a land grabber. A Writ Petition was filed by Amoodi in W.P.No.16573/1997 and obtained an interim orders on 24-7-1997 and again in W.P.No.1751 of 1998 on 12-2-1998 protecting his possession, and a direction against Amoodi not to alienate the property pending the proceedings. As per the report of the then Thasildar, dated 20-2-1979, it confirmed the possession of Amoodi over Ac.25-00 guntas in Sy.No.129. Subsequently, as per the correspondence with the Government, it shows as if there is a boundary dispute and an attempt was made to fix the boundary. Meanwhile, certain proceedings were issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.942 Revenue, dated 23-6-1983 and by a gazette notification dated 9-9-1981 canceling some of the alleged fake allotments in respect of the property forming part of defunct Jubili Hills municipality. As against the proceedings initiated under the land grabbing Court, the matter is carried to the Supreme Court and the same is pending in S.L.P.Nos.19243 and 19244 of 2007 wherein there is a direction to the Government not to create any 3rd parties, on 1-10-2007. And yet, according to the writ petitioners, the Government sought to allot the very same land to M/s.Andhra Prabha Publications and delivered the possession. Considering these and other checkered events, the learned Single Judge by taking into account the respective pleadings and the submissions made across the Bar, categorized these batch of cases as one being at the instance of the original owners, second by the subsequent purchasers. The factum is that the original owners filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the 1976 Act, as per the prescribed Form-I in C.C.No.E1/10320/76. Accordingly, in pursuance thereof, a draft statement was prepared under Section 8 (1) and a notice was issued under Section 8 (3) of the said Act on 29-3-1993 determining the extent of 9,081 square meters as excess land in TS.No.19/2, Block-K, Ward No.12, Plot No.129/45/D situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The final order purportedly under Section 8 (4) of the Act was passed in 27-6-2000 determining an extent of 241.14 square meters as excess land in respect of each of the five declarants, namely, the land owners. As against the same, the land owners and as well the District Collector, Hyderabad filed the appeals before the appellate authority viz., the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad and the same was disposed of on 16-1-2006 by allowing and remanding the same back to the primary authority, the Special Officer for fresh enquiry, after giving notice and proper opportunity to the declarants. Again after a contest, an order was passed by the primary authority on 28-10-2006, wherein it was held that the property was allotted to one Sri Mohd. Taquiddin, as per the memo dated 16- 02-1967, which can be culled out from out of the contents of the registered documents of sale, which was produced by the owners themselves in the year 1962 and the said Taquiuddin, who was Ex-Secretary to Government was declared as an evacuee, and therefore, the said property has become an evacuee property as per the declaration by way of notification No.5 dated 15-9-1949. Further, taking note of a contention in the written statements made by the Special Government Pleader, the earlier proceeding dated 5-12- 2001 of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, certifying the land to an extent of Ac.3-21 guntas purchased by the land owners as not being an evacuee property, was withdrawn by the subsequent proceedings dated 12- 07-2004. Considering the subsequent development in regard to the repeal of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling law as per the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, as per the resolution of the State Legislature dated 27-3-2008, Section 3 (1) of the said Act contemplates that the repeal of the principal Act shall not effect inter alia the vesting of the vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section (10), the possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in that behalf or the competent authority. The learned Single Judge took note of the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader, that the action under Section 10 (6) of the Act was not initiated and possession was not taken, and therefore, it was taken as an admission. Therefore admittedly, and there being no rebuttal even at this stage, the proceedings under the said Act accordingly become abated, and therefore, the impugned orders dated 28-10-2006 has no effect in law. Among the array of the writ petitioners, it consist Smt.Azizia Bee, wife of late Shaik Ahmed Bin Mohammed Amoodi and her sons and daughters in W.P.No.14980/2008. Similarly, the purchasers of the land from Amoodi filed a Writ in W.P.No.7315/2006. Claiming an interest over an extent of 10,016 sq yards forming part of Ac.3.31 guntas, which is being the subject matter of the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, in a second category of writ petitions, as mentioned by the learned Single Judge in WP.Nos.18353/2006, 6623/2008, 6705/2008, 3396/2008 and 7089/2008, the challenge is against the G.O.Ms.No.1570, dated 19-08-2005 allotting the property in favour of said Andhra Prabha Publications. Among the writ petitioners in the said category, there is a challenge by the legal heirs of late Amoodi and his subsequent purchasers of the land, which is a subject matter of L.G.C.No.118/1989 and a challenge to the allotment to Andhra Prabha Publications. The main attack on behalf of this, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge is that, while bona fide disputes pertains to the respective claims over the lands are pending, the Government ought not to have issued the impugned G.O, on the erroneous report of the District Collector, Hyderabad that the land admeasuring 4,046 square meters in Sy.No.403 part T.S.No.19/p, Block-K, Ward No.12, Road No.12, Banjara Hills as Government land, and the same is a vacant on the ground and free from litigation. Similarly, amongst the Writs this batch, the Writ W.P.No.7315/2006 is seeking for the relief for regularization of their possession under G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20-10-1995, which was contested by the Government on the ground that the petitioners therein do not fulfill the required conditions. As per the G.O.Ms.No.1570, dated 19-08-2005, reveals that on representation made by the Executive Director of Andhra Prabha Publications seeking for allotment of government land on par with other newspapers like Hindu, Andhra Jyothi, Vaartha etc., the land which is called as Amoodi land to an extent of 8,000 square meters on Road No.12, Banjara Hills, and stating that an extent of 4046 square meters of Government land in Sy.No.403 part in TS.No.19/p, Block-K, Ward No.12 at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet village and Mandal is a vacant and free from litigation, and therefore, being recommended by the Collector, which was forwarded through the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, who in turn recommending for selling the land at Rs.25,000/- per square yard, and therefore, the Government sought to alienate the said land to an extent of 8000 square meters for a concessional rate of Rs.8,000/- per square yard. The succinct aspect of the title as claimed, are that, an extent of 10,616 square yards in Plot No.129/45-D is claimed as having succeeded to the estate of Mercy Sona Bai Chellappa, who purchased the property under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.1020/1962 dated 17-07-1962, and tracing the title to Sri Mohd. Taquiuddin, whose right on an extent of Ac.3-21 guntas includes 10,616 square yards, being confirmed by the State Government vide Memo No.3933/Q2/64-17, dated 06-12-1967, on the recommendation of the District Collector, Hyderabad. Therefore, as per the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, it was taken that all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant Mercy Sona Bai Chellappa are eligible to get equal share in the property forming part of Ac.3.21 guntas (14,289 square meters), out of which 8866.61 square meters were purchased by late Mercy Sona Bai Chellappa and out of the balance land, 2599 square meters is vested in the Government. And therefore, each of the 5 legal heirs would be entitled to 241.14 square meters of which the retainable area is 10000 square meters. Hence, 241.14 square meters from each of the individuals is surplus. Thus, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the said excess as found initially by the primary authority and the remand orders of the appellate authority in appeal, at the instance of both the declarants as well the Government, and after the remand, the proceedings issued are being impugned. Therefore, by culling out the admitted situation, it was taken by the learned Single Judge that as per the report of the District Collector, an extent of 4,046 square meters was free from litigation. However, there is no attempt on the part of the District Collector to identify the said extent of 4,046 square meters in Sy.No.403 with specific reference to the boundaries. It was observed that when the land admeasuring 10,616 square meters was subject matter of dispute under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976, which is well within the knowledge of the District Collector, and who cannot plead ignorance being a party to the proceedings, and therefore, it was presumed that a District Collector would not have included an extent of 4046 square meters neither there is no justification for such inclusion. Observing that there was no attempt on the part of the appellants and especially the counsel representing the government to answer the question whether the land claimed by the land owners and successors interest forms part of 4046 square meters. Hence, by adding the confusion the government included further extent of 3954 square meters to the extent of 4046 square meters and allotted the same to the Andhra Prabha Publications. Even accepting, it was held that as per the version of the Collector’s statement that 4046 square meters is free from litigation, it implies that the balance extent of 3094 square meters is subject matter of litigation. Hence, the government could not have included the said extent of 3094 square meters in an extent of 8000 square meters, over and above 4046 square meters, which alone is free from litigation, even as per the District Collector. Therefore, the District Collector did not apply the mind in the whole affair nor there is any justification or correctness in the statement of fact that the land is free from litigation, especially, when the land owners are making their bona fide claim over 10,616 square meters, and the very same land is being allotted to the Andhra Prabha Publications, which is neither vested nor available as such for being allotted to a 3rd party. Further, it was observed that if really the said land is to be excluded from the purview of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Government could not have exercised any such right, as long as these disputes are settled finally, and rejected the contention on behalf of the appellants that even if there is a dispute, the Government is not precluded from making allotment. Further, on the face of the finding of the Special Officer, no doubt, for the first time in the orders dated 28-10-2006, the land was held to be an evacuee property and therefore either way they could not have allotted. Though, the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976 stood abated in view of the repealing Act of 1999, it cannot be said that the claim of land owner speculative since their title is traced to a registered document of the year 1967 by Md.Taquiddin, whose title by the proceedings of the government dated 6-12-1967, though, of course refrained from making any expression on the final opinion on the title of the land owners. But, however it reveals that there exists a bona fide and genuine disputed claim pending. Therefore, as long as there is no finality in the process of adjudication by proper level, there could have been any allotment. Coming to the proceedings of the land grabbing Court and referring to the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.90/1968, on the file of the Court of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing the suit filed by one R.Bhaskar Rao against the said Amoodi and confirmed by the Judgments in CCCA.No.122 of 1979 and LPA.No.99 of 1988 recognizing late Amoodi as the title holder. However, in view of the proceedings under the land grabbing in LGC.118 of 1980 declaring Amoodi as land grabber and the subsequent writ petition filed in WP.1751 of 1998, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6-2-2004 and the claim of the authorities that possession of 9,906 square meters of land is being taken and fencing was laid, and subsequently, the said writ petition was restored on 4-3-2005 and the impugned proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.1570 was issued on 19-08-2005. However, the main writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 25-5-2007 and the appeals in SLP.Nos.19243 and 19244 of 2007 are pending on the file of the Supreme Court with an interim directions against the State Government not to create any third party interest. Thus, taking into account these dates, the learned Single Judge noted that the impugned G.O.Ms.1570, dated 19-8-2005 was issued at a time when the Writ in W.P.1715 of 1998 as against the land grabbing proceedings was pending, and therefore, the land which is the subject matter of the LGC proceedings, could not have been allotted. Even otherwise, in respect of the said land under the land grabbing proceedings, there is a bona fide dispute pending between the petitioners and the government, apart from the fact that the subsisting interim orders of the Supreme Court and issuance of the impugned G.O running contra to each other. As regards the claim of the purchasers of the plot under various registered sale deeds during the year 1967-68 for consideration, it was held that their claim is always is subject to the proceedings under the land grabbing proceedings, which is pending before the Supreme Court, and if such land as claimed is included in the allotment of the land to the Andhra Prabha Publications stand on the same footing as that of the other writ petitioners viz., owners and the said extent deserves to be excluded. Further, in respect of the writ petition in WP.6668 of 2006 where the claim was in regard to the representation dated 21-9-2004 claiming for allotment, it was noted that the said writ petition does not hold any merit and liable for dismiss for non-prosecution, without going into the merits of the case, having regard to the change in the counsel and non-appearance in spite of the attempt to send the notices to them, which was returned with an endorsement party has left. Thus, ultimately, the learned Single judge held that the land is not liable for allotment to 3rd party including the Andhra Prabha Publications unless and until it is held by the competent forum that these lands belong to and vested in the state government. In the absence of the specific version from the government as to the identity, which can be made by exercise of conducting a survey by the competent authority. In the event of any such survey and finding that the land which is allotted to Andhra Prabha Publications is forming part of the land claimed by them, it needs to be excluded, and after such exclusion, if there exists any remaining extent from out of the 8000 square meters, the State Government shall be free to allot such remaining land to the Andhra Prabha Publications. Accordingly, a direction was given to the District Collector, Hyderabad to cause a survey in the presence of the representatives of the parties, and in the event of any grievance by any of the parties there are left free to avail the remedies available under the law with a reiteration that the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling laws have abated, all the writ petitions were allowed except WP.6668 of 2008 as observed. Hence, these appeals. The grounds on which the State seeks to assail the orders of the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.226 of 2009 primarily centers around the contention that there is totally erroneous approach by the learned Single Judge since the property allotted to the Andhra Prabha Publication was that of the proceedings against Amoodi, whose appeal is pending before the Supreme Court, and therefore, there is nothing to show that the land of the writ petitioners is being taken under the guise of allotting the land of Amoodi. Further, the proceedings would amply show that the land is totally different and not as claimed by the writ petitioner, but only that of Amoodi. It was further pleaded that the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings do not either way confer or abrogate the title nor would confirm on any person. Further, the plot which has been allotted to Andhra Prabha Publication was taken over through the process of execution of the decree of the Special Court under the land grabbing as per Rule 5 of the Rules framed under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, and there is absolutely no justification to say that the land claimed by the writ petitioners there exists any bona fide claim or dispute. Further, it was clarified that the allotment as made to the Andhra Prabha Publication is subject to the outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court and that the land was duly taken physical delivery thereof as per the procedure contemplated under the aforesaid Rule 5. Therefore, the writ petitioners have absolutely no right, much less, enforceable. There is no pendency of any litigation in respect of the land allotted. Similar are the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants in W.A.No.413 of 2009 viz., the allottee publication contending that the title of the writ petitioners was never established in any Court of law, and in fact, it was not accepted by the Courts and the authorities, and further, the learned Single Judge has gone far beyond the extra ordinary jurisdiction and the limitations under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India as if trying to decide a civil suit. Further, the appellant is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration and necessarily the appellant claim needs to be sufficiently protected. Thus, the learned Advocate General pressed into service substantially that the title was that of the Amoodi and Grace Satyavathi and the Civil Court has held accordingly in his favour, and as far as the land grabbing proceedings are concerned, against the Amoodi, the appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. Similarly, in respect of the land of which the title is with the Grace Satyavathi, it was contended that the State Government has got the possession as per the procedure duly contemplated under the statute and a substantial amount of Rs.7 crores is paid by the allottee. All these final transactions and the sale deeds executed in favour of the allottees are not questioned by the writ petitioners in any manner or in the manner as required to be done under the law. Therefore, the title has already passed into the allottees. As far as the established principles under the public law is concerned, it was submitted by the learned Advocate General that it is not necessary to go into the same having regard to the facts in the case. Further, it was also contended that the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act have no jurisdiction or any power to go into any serious questions including that of an evacuee, and there is no justification to claim any directions as they sought for. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents in the writ petitions contended that the subject matter of the land includes almost 10000 square yards and the writ petitions are being filed not only by the owners but also by the subsequent purchasers. He further contended that since there a serious dispute is pending and the allotted area to an extent of 8000 sq meters is not properly identified on the site nor from any of the proceedings, there could not have been any allotment. Admittedly, an excess land was found to be existing and the same is not yet properly certified identify. Thus, the report of the Collector that there is no dispute pending is totally wrong. Further, it was contended that though the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29-7-2002, but it was restored on 4-3-2005, and the possession was taken on 26-8-2005 and the G.O., was issued on 19-8-2005, which is totally wrong and contrary to the orders of status quo. Thus, looking from any angle there is a bona fide dispute existing. Sri Srinivas, appearing on behalf of Ms.D.Geetha reiterating all these contentions further submitted that having regard to the action on the part of the State which is contrary to the orders of this court, he has filed a contempt case. He also submitted that the premise that the land is free from litigation as stated in the impugned proceedings, is not correct. On a conspectus of the various contentions as set forth and the record would amply disclose as to varied questions, which crop up for consideration, especially; firstly, as to the effect of the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act; secondly, the incidence of the proceedings initiated under the Land Grabbing and thirdly, about the correctness of the allotment made in favour of the newspaper publications. As already stated above, all these events vis-à-vis the dates pertaining thereto are not in any controversy. It would suffice to take note of the very same for the purpose of ascertaining the answer to these queries. Coming to the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the declaration by the owners filed under Section 6 (1) of the said Act was taken up CC E1/10320/76. Thereupon, the proceedings under Section 8 (3) of the said Act were issued on 29-3-1993 holding the excess as total 9081. Similarly, it was followed by the proceedings under Section 8 (4) of the said Act on 27-6-2000 holding the excess as 241.14 for each of the shareholder. The appeals, which have been filed against these orders, both by the declarants and as well State, were allowed on 16-1-2006 and the matters were remanded for fresh disposal, after giving notice and opportunity to the parties. Consequently, the matter was taken up again and the Special Officer instead going into the total of holding held by the respective declrants vis-à- vis the entitlement and the excess, the Special Officer passed the orders on 28-10-2006 traversing from the very parameters as required to be considered or gone into under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976, and for the first time, it was held that the property is an evacuee property. This finding is the subject matter of an attack at all levels. Admittedly, there is neither consideration nor any determination of the holding or the excess either held or entitled to. There is no decision on any of these aspects. It is also not in serious dispute by any of the side that this finding is of virgin in its nature. It is not the case of the State that any proceedings under the concerned evacuee laws were initiated or taken recourse to, nor it is the case of the State or any of the evacuee authorities that such case is put forth with due notice and opportunity to all the parties concerned. Admittedly, even if any such plea were to be there, which squarely falls within the statutory limitations of the evacuee laws, it could not have been gone into by any of the authorities under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. It is not the case that any of the competent authorities have come up with any such proceedings or findings appropriately as known to law. Therefore, this finding by the Special Officer purportedly to act under and in pursuance of the powers conferred under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976 is wholly misconceived apart from being without jurisdiction. Neither the State or other wise has come forth with any justification, either in law or on facts, to support the finding given by the Special Officer as to the property being evacuee property. That apart, it is quite crystal clear that this plea has come for the first time before the Special Officer and that too after the remand made in appeals on 16-1-2006. Neither at the stage of 8(3) nor at the stage of 8(4) such plea was raised or came to be considered much less the plea was a subject matter of the appeals or even in the orders of remand by the appellate authorities on 16-1-2006. The remand order does not care in nor include any direction to go into such case of the property being evacuee or not. Therefore, prima facie, this aspect of evacuee property is sought to be gone into and held against the individuals without there being proper opportunity and without a proper basis. Apart from that, even such plea which does not form part of the directions of the order of remand, could not have been gone into or held in any way. Thus, from all the angles, the findings as to the evacuee are wholly no nest and cannot be put against any of the parties. Further, having regard to the fact that the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act have already been repealed with effect from 18-3-1999, and admittedly in the present case no possession was taken from the original owners or the declarants in respect of the alleged surplus, and therefore, the question of continuing the proceedings in spite of the repeal also does not arise. Since the provisions under the repealing Act is concluded, as long as possession is not taken, the repealing would have its effect on all hands down and with all the necessary incidents as if there exists no law. Thus, the proceedings dated 28-10-2006 and also any determination in this regard purportedly under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act has no effect nor can be given effect to and there exists no valid order either enforceable in law or can be put against any of the parties. Therefore, for all these reasons, we hold that the entire proceedings as proceeded with under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act completely stood lapsed and no longer subsist in any manner of whatsoever nature nor even the findings as contained in any of those proceedings. Now falling back to the main question as to the proceedings initiated under the Land Grabbing Act, admittedly, the State has filed the Land Grabbing case in LGC.118/1989 against the Amoodi for an extent of Ac.15- 00, and after a regular trial, it was allowed as per the orders dated 16-10- 1997 by the Land Grabbing Court. Challenging the same, a writ was filed in WP.1715/1998 and this Court has granted the orders of status quo on 2-2-

1998. Thereafter, the said writ petition came to be dismissed for default on 29-7-2002 and again after its restoration, it was again dismissed for non- prosecution on 6-2-2004. In the meanwhile, as contemplated under Section 15 (2) of the said Act the Form-V was issued by the authorities on 26-8-2004 and consequently the possession of the land was taken over by the authorities on 16-10-2004. It is only thereafter the writ petition subsequent to its restoration was dismissed finally on merits on 25-5-2007. As against these orders, the appeals in SLP.Nos.19243 and 19244 of 2007 are filed in the Supreme Court and the same is still pending. In the said appeals, the Supreme Court has granted the interim direction not to create any 3rd parties and the said interim orders were also subsisting. Thus, either way looking from this, it is quite apparent that the possession of the land in pursuance of the Land Grabbing Case in favour of the State was ultimately taken on 16-10- 2002 at a time when neither the writ petition was filed nor any interim orders were subsisting. Thus, it cannot be said that the possession was taken contrary to any of the orders or the proceedings pending. It is not dispute either that in the judgment which was giving final disposal in LGC 118 of 1999 dated 16-10-1997 it was categorically found against Amoodi and in favour of the State and the same was also confirmed again at the stage of dismissing the writ petition finally on 16-10-21004 thus concurrently it was found that Amoodi is an encroacher and the State has got every right, title and interest. Since the main appeal is still pending consideration, we express no opinion as to the correctness of these findings. However, it is suffice to take note of the fact that prima facie the finding of fact on title in the said Land Grabbing proceedings is found against Amoodi, but in favour of the State and the State has taken possession on 16-10-2004. Therefore, since the matter is subjudice without going into the merits or the correctness of these proceedings and also questions involved therein, it was taken to the effect that the title of the State has been confirmed and there is no such proceedings pending at the relevant point of time as per as these proceedings are concerned. Falling back to the contention raised on behalf of the respondents about the pending proceedings and the effect on the allotment made, it is to be seen that as against the orders in the land grabbing case in L.G.C.No.118 of 1989, which was initiated against Amoodi was allowed as per orders on 16-10-1997, a writ was filed in W.P.No.1751 of 1998 wherein this Court has granted interim directions on 2-2-1998 to maintain status quo. However, the said Writ was dismissed for default as per orders dated 29-7-2002. Meanwhile, the notice in Form-V under Section 15 (2) of the said Act was issued on 26-8-2004 and the possession was taken by the authorities on 16-10-2004. It is only, thereafter the matter was restored back and ultimately dismissed as per orders on 25-5-2007, which was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same is still pending. Therefore, either taking possession or acting thereon would not in any way can be said to be in the teeth of the orders of the Court or any contravention thereof. Similarly, it is seen from the record that in the very writ petition in W.P.No.16573 of 1997, which was filed on 22-7-1997 the interim orders to maintain the status quo was granted on 24-7-

1997. However, the said writ petition also was dismissed for default on 9-4-2004. Subsequently, an application implead was WPMP.No.26902 of 2008 by the 3rd parties and the same was also dismissed on 23-9-2008. Therefore, it is quite clear that taking possession by the authority on 16-10-2004 no way can be considered to be against any of the orders either interim or otherwise passed by the Court. Hence, it cannot be said that the action on the part of the authority is in any way vitiated. Further, from the above it is seen that both the writ petitions, which are ultimately dismissed, no doubt, though as against one of which an appeal is pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, mere such pendency would not in any way effect unless and until the result is varied with in those proceedings ultimately at the higher level. It is needless to mention that since an appeal has already been preferred to the Supreme Court as against the Judgment in the Land Grabbing Case and the same is still pending, any decision in these proceedings would be subject to the ultimate decision to be given by the Supreme Court. Further, we make it clear that in such event, the parties would not be entitled to claim any equities in pursuance of this Judgment. Ultimately, boiling down to the correctness of the allotment made in favour of the Paper Publications, it is only in pursuance of an application filed by these persons, the impugned G.O was issued on 19-8-2005, that is much after the possession was taken on 16-10-2004 by the authorities pursuance of the Land Grabbing proceedings. Though, it can safely be said that any of these action which has been taken as a consequent to the possession being taken on 16-10-2004 are always subject to the ultimate findings in the appeals, which is pending in the Supreme Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State could not have acted in implementing the orders passed by the Land Grabbing Court in the manner as contemplated under the law. There is no dispute to the fact that Form-V was issued on 26-8-2004 and possession was taken on 16-10-2004 and either of those two dates there was any interim orders much less any interim orders. It is only from these more pragmatic angle, the question has to be looked into as to whether there exist any title dispute or it is a clear land. As far as the title is concerned the Land Grabbing Court has declined to accept the version of Amoodi, but upheld that of the State. Therefore, there exists no doubt a clear case of title being upheld in favour of the State, and no such dispute still continues to exist in view of the dismissal of the very writ petition and the findings therein. As per the clearness is concerned, it can safely be said that since till the date of taking possession on 16-10-2004, the State is in possession and enjoyment and therefore as on the date of allotment, it cannot be said that there is any unclearness or any cloud showering around the possession of the State so as to deal with it in the manner it has to be done. In view of the afore said findings on all the three counts, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge is not right in simply holding that the property does not belong and vest in the State Government and there is no definite stand on the part of the State. As far as the directions, which are being given by the learned Single Judge for conducting survey is concerned, it cannot be said that there is any such dispute as long as the property is with the State and having been taken possession under due panchanama on 16- 10-2004. Therefore, we are also not in agreement with the nature of direction as given by the learned Single Judge to conduct survey. In view of the aforesaid reasons and the findings as arrived at, we allow the writ appeals and set side the judgment of the learned Single Judge W.P.No.7315/2006, W.P.No.18353/2006, W.P.No.6705/2008, W.P.No.7089/2008, W.P.No.6623/2008, W.P.No.3396/2008, W.P.No.14980/2008, W.P.No.7090/2008, W.P.No.6623/2008, W.P.No.6705/2008, W.P.No.26478/2006, W.P.No.6774/2008, W.P.No.6750/2008, W.P.No.6668/2006, W.P.No.3396/2008 W.P.No.3395/2008 dated 3-12-2008. No costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ SANJAY KUMAR,J DATE: -03-2011 GRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.Nos.226, 413, 414, 479, 490, 566, 574, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247 of 2009 And W.A.No.567 of 2010 Dated: -03-2011