Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the inclusion of
Provisions considered
Judgment
The petitioners are the owners of the lands in Survey Nos.198/2, 285/2, 287/2, 351/2, 338/2, 341/2, 351/2 and 352/2 of Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Since the lands are the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) was filed by them. An order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed on 27.03.2006 holding that the petitioners possess the land, in excess of ceiling limits. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against the order under Section 8(4) of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal, notices/notifications, under different sub-sections of Section 10 of the Act, were issued, the latest being the one under Section 10(5) of the Act, dated 27.02.2007. The Act came to be repealed with effect from 28.03.2008 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In view of this development, the appellate authority closed appeal through order, dated 01.05.2008. Thereafter, the authorities under the Act are said to have taken possession of the land on 08.05.2008. On the basis of this, the Special Officer and Competent authority, the second respondent herein, furnished a list of lands covered by the Act to the Sub-Registrar, Chempapet, the sixth respondent herein, in the context of prohibition of registration of documents under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The
petitioners feel aggrieved by the list and in particular, item No.306 thereof. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The list furnished by the second respondent to the sixth respondent comprises of the lands that have already vested with the Government by the time the Act was repealed. If the lands are vested with the Government, the prohibition under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 operates. So far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned, it is, no doubt, true that they were held to be in excess of ceiling limits. However, by the time the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Act was repealed. Totally, different consequences would have ensued, had the possession of the lands of the petitioners been taken by the Government before
28.03.2008. The reason is that the repealed Act saves the lands that are already vested with the Government, on taking possession thereof under Section 10(6) of the Act. In the instant case, the possession was taken as per the panchanama only on
Operative part
08.05.2008, which is obviously beyond the date of repeal. Hence, there is no justification for the second respondent in including the lands of the petitioners in the list of lands covered by the Act. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the inclusion of the lands of the petitioners in the list at Item No.306 is set aside. The sixth respondent is directed to process the documents that may be presented by the petitioners in relation to the lands held by them. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.03.2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the inclusion of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Registration Act, 1908.
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.