High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more in the nature of writ Mandamus, declaring that the action of 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned Proceedings No. J2l1 1482lo 11487t1976, daled 22.11.2002, under Section 8 (4) and all other proceedings issued upto Section 10 (6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the consequential Notice issued in Letter No. tjt74612015, dated 3.7.2015, under section 7 0f the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, by the 4'h respondent, are contrary to princip,les of natural justice, illegal, contrary to lhe provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, '1976, contrary to ther provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and thereby' u nconstitutional, by holding that the land t,: an extent of

306.90 sq meters irr Plot No. 21 , Survey No. 14, of Moosararnoagn Village, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, purchased by the petitioners, vide Regd. Sale Deed Docum':nt No. 1986 of 1985, dated '19.7.1985, and r:he Registered Sale Deed, vide Document No. 1106 of 1986, dated 7.5,1986, registered in the Office cf the Sub-Registrar, Azampura, Hyderabad, are legal rarid valid, and thereby they are the rightful owners and possessors of the said land l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 29933 OF 2015) 7 Petition underr Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circum stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any \May interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the land to an extent c,f 306.90 sq. meters in Plot No. 21, Survr:y No. 14, of Moosarambagh Village, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, pending disposal of the above Writ P,-.tition. l.A. NO: 2OF 2O15(WPMP. NO: 29934 OF 2015 ) Petition underr Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further croceedings, in pursuance of the Notir:e issued by the 4th respondent, under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encr:rachment Act, 1905, in Letter No. 8174612015, dated 3.7.2015, pending disposat of the above Writ Petition. l.A. NO:1 OF 0 MP. NO: 38 oF 2016 BETWEEN i. eut^n eg-*a[ s/o Vijay Kumar Agarwal aged 30 Years, occ: business r/o no. l4-2-179/R, Hari Om colonY Shah Inayat gunj, Begum bazaar Hyderabad

2. Priyanka Rani w/o Aakash Agarwal aged 28 years, occ: household rlo no. 14-2-L79lR, Hari Om colonY . Shah Inayat gunj, Begum bazaar -Hyderabad

3.. Ankit Agarwal s/o Vijay Kumar Agatwal ,aged 28 Year3, occ: business frlo.no. | 4-2-119lR, Hari Om colonY (*huh t4uyut gunj, Begum bazlar Hyderabad

4. Vijay Kumar Agarwal . 5 s/o late Ramavatar Agarw-al aged 56 years, occ: business r/o no. l4-2-1791R, Hari Om colony Shah Inayat gunj, Begum baza.ar Hlderabad Suni*ra Bai w/o Vijay Kumar Agarwal aged 50 years. occ: household rlo no. 14-2-1791R-, Hari Om colony Shah lnayat gunj, Begum bazaar Hyderabad 3" :,!Ll -Petitioners/ Proposgd Respondents no. 5 to 9 T Surya Karan Reddy s/o late T Ramohandra ReddY' aged 60 years, occ: advocate rlo no. 16-ll-4691N13 Moosaram bagh, Hyderabad I ,|{ .i / \ t1t t@ )69 2 T Vijay Karan Reddy s/o Iate T ltemchandra Reddy aged -{5 ye a:'s, occ: golt. employee r/o no. 16- I -46911J13 Moosaram bagh, Hyderabad The Slate of Telangana rep. bv its Principal Secretary Revenue (Utl.l) Depatment Secretariar. J l1 derabad The Special Offlcer & Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Chandra Vihar, MJ market, Hyderabad -Respondents,' Pr:titioners The Distri<:t Collector Hyderabad district at Khairatabad, Hyderabad The Tahsillar Saidabad nrandal, Saleemnagar MalakpeL, Hyderabad -ResP,1ndsnB7 ,Respondents rro. I to z r r 6 Petition und r Section 1 1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated f the petition, the High Court may be pleased to in the affidavit file in support implead the petitio ers as resp ndents no.5 to 9 in WP No.2!.3144121015 J I t I Counsel for the Pe itioner: SRIl. h I Counsel for the R po ndent N .'l to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Jents: snr VIVEK JAIN Counsel for the P O. Res pon FO SRI K.SITA RAM I .MADHAN MOHAN RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REY The Court made th Ie following: ORDER F I ,i I .l i I l I i l I I t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23144 of 2OLS ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief: "....to issue an order or directiotl more in the nature of Wit Mandamus declaring that ttle action of 2"d respon-dent in issuing the impugned Proceedings No.J2/11482 to 11487/1976 dated 22'11'2002 under Section 8 (4) and. all other proceedings issued upto Section 10 (6) of the llrban Lani (Cetling and kegutation) Act, 1976 and the consequential Notice issued in felter tlo.A/i+A/ 2015 doted 3.7.2015 under Section 7 of ttg AP Land" Encroaclment Act, 1905 by tlte 4th respondent are the prouision's iontrary to pinciples of naturol justice, illegal, contrary oJ the ilrbin t-ina PLitirtg and Regutation) Act, 1976 cofttrary to the prouisiois of ttte Andhra Prttdesh Land Encroactunent Act' 1905 and iterebg uncinstitutional bg hotding that the land to an extent of 306 90 tq.^"i.rt in Ptot No.21 SurueA No 14 of Mo-osarambagh Vitlage' SaiarUaa Mandol, Hgderabad. Diitict purchased by tlrc petitioners utde Regd Sale Deed Document No-1986 of 1985 dated 19'7'-1985 and' the Aelgistered Sttle Deed uide Doctment No.11O6 of 1986 dated 7 51986 ,eji"tered in the Olfice of the Sub'Registrar, Azampura,- Hgde'rabad are tilgit "da, ualid. and therebg thig are the nghfut ouners and possessors of the soid land...." -to

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counSel for the respective parties and perused the record. It is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors 3. of various extents of lands in Plot No 21 in Survey No' 14 situated at Moosarambagh, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos'1986 of 1985 and 1106 of 1986, dated 19.O7.1985 arrd O7'O5 1986 respectively' It is further case of the petitioners that their vendors and their family 2 pr oceedings t 5.o9.1976. members filecl declaration under the provisions of Urt:an Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short .ULC Act,) It is stated that their vendors obtai.ned under SectiotT 26 of the ULC Act vide L.Dis.No.SO Br CA.ULC No.D2l817 /2ri /84, dated lZ.O4.1gB4 to sell an extent of 1,030 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.14. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 has issu.ed proceedings vide proc.No.J/ 11482/ .l l4g7 /26 dated 19.05. I !,93 stating that the surplus lan,i p16161 by the declarants has; been determined under Section g(l) of thc ULC Act and objections, rf any shall be preferred within thirty da5.s and in response to -the same, objections were filed on 06.0g. 19!13. It is further stated that respondent No.2 has issued pr.oceedr ngs vide Proc. No.J27' 1 1,1U2 to lI48Z /26 dated 22.I1 .2OO2 statjng that notrces u,ere issued to all the surpius land hoiders but no documentary ,lvidence was produced in support of their case and accordingly. thr: objecrion petition filed by the surphLs land holders was rejected. Il, is also stated that respondent No.4_Tahsi..dar has issued notice vide Lr.No.B/ 246/2OlS dated O3.07.2O1€i under Section 7 of thi: {.p. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short Act, 1905') stating that the petilioners are in unauthorized occuFration of the said lands anC directed to submit explanation within sev,:n days as to nhy actiorL shouid not be taken against them for evicting from the subjecl lands. 3

4. Sri E. Madhan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents without taking into consideration of the permissions obtained by the vendor of the petitioners, have proceeded to pass orders under Section 8(1) and 8(3) of the ULC Act declaring that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners are void and same are contrary to the ULC Act'

5. Per contra, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that under Section 26 of tLte ULC Act, no person holding vacant land within the ceiling limit shall transfer such land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except after giving notice in writing ef the intended transfer to the competent authorit5r and the property, which has been exempted is not within the ceiling limit, therefore, the exemption granted under Section 26 of t}:.e Act is not binding on the respondents for computing total extent of the land in favour of the declarant. It is further submitted that after conducting panchanama, dated 1 |.Og 2OO4, the excess vacant surplus land of the declarant has been taken possession after following the procedure as contemplated under Section 10(5) and iO(6) of the ULC Act. Therefore, the petitioners have not made out any case warranting interference in the impugned proceedings and the respondents have rightly initiated action by issuing the proceedings I 4 dated 03.07.12O15 under the Act, 190S for eviction of the petitioners from the Government land. It is contended that ;:he all:ged lands exempted unr*rr Section 26 of the ULC Act is not lorming part of the lands taken prossession by the Government as sur-plus lands under Section 10(6) of the Act and as such, there is no ;recessity for the respondents fitr rssulng any notice under the ULC Act

6. In reply, rearned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even as olr the date of execution of the sale d,,:eds, the respondents arr: aware of the fact that the land was tran,sferred in favour of the p,31i1i6n..s by registered sale deeds, but n: notices were issued b.u the respondents as required under ULC r\ct. It is further sutrmit.tr:rl that as per sub_rule (2) of Rule 5 of the ULC Rules, all the prersons interested and affected by the prepar:ation of the draft staterr ent under sub_section g(3) is entitled for issuing notice for filinE; cb-jections but the respondents have not lollowed the said procedu-c. It is further submitted that since the pelitioners have purchasecl tl,rc property on 19.05.2O06 and 0]2.05.2()06 and they are in poss;ession of the property, taking into cc,nsideration of the right and erLtrtlement of the petitioners, the enquiry offi,:s1 hag submitted a rep,lrt on the file of the competent autho rity for lssuance of notir:r s in respect of the subject iands. Since tlre said procedure has r:ot been iollowed, the respondents are not having \ I 5 any claim to say the subject lands are vested in the State as surplus lands It is evident from the records that except drawing a 7. panchanama for taking de jure possession of the subject property' the respondents have not issued any notice under Section 10(3) or 10(5) of the ULC Act, to the petitioners, who are the affected parties' If there is any dispute with regard to the identihcation and Iocalization of the lands, unless the procedure known to law is followed, the respondents cannot resume the lands which are disputed. Since there is no material to establish that the lands purchased by the petitioners are forming part of the surplus lands' the proceedings issued by the respondents is without jurisdiction and the same is liabie to be set aside'

8. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the proceedings No.J2lIl482 to 11487 11976 d'ated 22'11'20O2 issued by the respondent No.2 and the notice vide Proc'No'B/74612015 dated O3.07.2015 issued by the respondent No 4 are set aside insofar as the petitioners lands are concemed relating to the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos'1986/1985 dated 19.07.1985 and 11065/1986 dated 07'O5'1986' The respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps for implementation of the impugned orders in respect of other lands excluding the lands l i I i I l I I I I {] 6 covered by ll-re petitioners sale deeds, AS proceedingls emanated from Section 8(4) and t0 (6) of ULC Act hIave ilttaine,l finality in accordance u.ith law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pcnding, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY GISTRAR ASSI . i'. OFFICER ' I[1J;ifH3l,3*::iU J}Z:enue (uc r) Department, secretariat, Hyderabad, 2. The Special Officer & Compete-nt Authority, Urban t_and Ceiling, Chandra 3' The District corector, Hyderabad District, Khairtabad, Hyderabad-500 004. o Vihar, M..J..Market, Hyderabad_s00 d0j'"-""' "'- l?:""1*:'ll,flbrutu'o'o'd Mandal' Saleemnasar colorv, Matakpet, '

5. One CC to SRt K.S|TA RAM, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRt VTVEK JAIN, Advocate tOpUCJ ' Iy8":r?:J?ot'#,to* REVENUE' Hish court ror the State or retangana at 8. Two CD Copies BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 271A112025 t I { , ORDER WP.No.23144 ot 2015 t .( rlE s f,. ,s- \ ( I 24,'lAh ?o?f . D,-. , ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS