Telangana High Court
Sri Sriramshetty Srinivasa Rao, ... vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept-Ulc, Hyderabad ... on 10 March, 2026
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERBAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.13262 of 2015
Dated: 10.03.2026
Between
Sriramshetty Srinivasa Rao and others.
...PETITIONERS
And
The State of Telangana.
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department - ULC,
Secretariat,
Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in claiming the land of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.1.33 guntas in Sy.No.574 of Alwal village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as excess vacant land to the holding of a dead declarant in proceedings No.CC.No.G1/13089/76 dated 23.12.2005 basing on G.O.Ms.No.580 Revenue (UC-II) Department dated 04.05.2005 on the basis of fraudulent panchanama with antedate as 27.04.2006, as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
2. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner, in brief as under:
a) The petitioners have jointly purchased the subject land from Mohd. Sultan Sharief and others represented by GPA holder 2 P. Seetha Ram Reddy and others under registered sale deed dated 02.12.2004. The vendors of the petitioners acquired title to the subject property vide proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings No.3201/1995 dated 29.12.1995. The vendors of the petitioners were also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.
(b) The vendors of the petitioners purchased the subject land from Mohd. Showkat Hussain and others under agreement of sale dated 25.01.1999, which was regularized under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The petitioners applied to respondent No.5 for mutation of their names in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar passbooks. As the respondent No.5 did not consider the request of the petitioners, they approached the respondent No.4, who passed orders on 14.06.2006 directing the respondent No.5 to record the names of the petitioners as pattadars. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 issued notice dated 20.0.2026 in Form VIII and after inspecting the subject property, issued proceedings dated 22.07.2006 sanctioning mutation in favour of the petitioners.
c) That, while things stood thus, the respondents inspected the subject land in the month of December 2015 and claimed that the land has been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling 3 and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the ULC Act). Petitioners made enquiry and filed an application dated 19.01.2015 under the Right to Information Act for furnishing copies of the ULC proceedings. The respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 24.02.2015 through which the petitioners came to know that the respondent No.2 - Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, passed order dated 23.12.2005 in C.C.No.G1/13087 to 13092/76, G1/8931 to 8938/76, G1/8920/76, G1/8297, 8928, 8924 and 8926/76.
3. (a) It is submitted that the original owner, namely, Gulam Ahmed, had alienated the agricultural land of Ac.1.33 guntas in Sy.No.574 of Alwal village in favour of the vendors of the petitioners, who, in turn, had sold the same to the petitioners. The orders under Sections 8(1) and 8(4) of the ULC Act were passed behind the back of the petitioners erroneously, even after Late Gulam Ahmed had already transferred the land in favour of the vendors of the petitioners and he was not holder of the land when common order was passed in C.C.No.G1/13087 to 13092/76, G1/8931 to 8938/76, G1/8920/76, G1/8297, 8928, 8924 and 8926/76 under Section 8(4) of the Act. The petitioners also came to know that pursuant to Section 8(4) order, final statement under Section 9(1) was issued and thereafter, notification under Section 10(1) and 10(3) were issued. The petitioners are in possession of the property and were not issued notice under Section 10(5) of the 4 ULC Act. The petitioners had been in actual and physical possession of the subject land.
(b) That on the earlier occasion, the respondent No.2 passed order under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act dated 30.01.1996 holding that the subject lands cannot be treated as vacant land. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.580 Revenue (UC.II) Department dated 04.05.2005 setting aside the orders of the respondent No.2 dated 30.01.1996 without issuing notice to the petitioners, by invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the ULC Act. Under G.O.Ms.No.580 dated 04.05.2005 the State Government directed the Special Officer to re-determine the surplus treating all lands as vacant as on 17.02.1976.
(c) That the predecessor-in-title of the original vendors of the petitioners viz. Gulam Ahmed was issued ORC under Section 3 of the A.P. (T.A.) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 only on 04.03.1983 vide proceedings of the RDO in File No.I/2537/1975. Even in the declaration of Late Gulam Ahmed, filed under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, he stated that he had no vacant land and he was only having agricultural land, which in includes the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.574.
4. The respondents filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioners are neither owners nor declarants, who filed statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act. They do not have locus standi to 5 challenge the proceedings of the respondent No.2. The purchase of the subject land by the petitioners is in violation of Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the ULC Act. The land claimed by the petitioners is covered by the Master Plan of Hyderabad, which came into effect from 29.09.1980. Thus, the lands are vacant lands as per Section 2(o) of the ULC Act. Sri Gulam Mohiuddin, Inamdar and 19 others filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act. Sri Gulam Ahmed is one of the declarants and one of the share holders. The subject land was notified for residential zone under the Master Plan. Hence, order under Section 8(4) along with statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act was issued on 23.12.2005 to the extent of lands declared by Sri Gulam Ahmed i.e. 73765.73 sq. meters as surplus by allowing him to retain 1000 sq. meters under Section 4(1)(b) of the ULC Act.
5. It is further stated that the Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 34 of the ULC Act issued G.O.Ms.No.580 dated 04.05.2005 setting aside the earlier orders of the respondent No.2 as they are not in accordance with law. Notices were issued to all the declarants on 10.05.2005,17.11.2005 for personal hearing and after examining the records, order under Section 8(4) of the Act was issued on 23.12.2005 declaring the declarants Sri Gulam Mohiuddin and 19 others as excess holders to an extent of 10,19,579.75 sq. meters (Ac.249.30 guntas) in Sy.Nos.557, 558, 6 559, 560, 561, 562 etc. Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Thereafter, notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued on 29.12.2005, declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was issued on 31.01.2006, notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 25.02.2006 and served on one M.A. Jaleel, who is one of the declarants and final possession was taken over on 05.04.2006, 10.04.2006, 12.04.2006, 26.04.2006, 28.04.2006, 03.05.2006, 04.05.2006 and 20.05.2006 through Panchanamas.
6. Mr. P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on an order passed by this Court in WP.No.21277 of 2008 dated 05.07.2024 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.32 guntas of parts of Sy.Nos.560, 563, 564, 565 and 575, Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He submitted that at the first instance this Court allowed this writ petition by order dated 18.01.2023, which was challenged by the respondents herein in WA.No.1133 of 2024 wherein the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the impugned order in WP.No.13262 of 2015 dated 18.01.2023 is similar to the order passed in WP.No.24552 of 2008 dated 17.03.2011, which was set aside in WA.No.28 of 2014 and the matter was remitted back to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision. Accordingly, WA.No.1133 of 2024 was disposed of remitting back the present writ petition to the learned Single Judge 7 to decide the matter afresh.
7. WP.No.21277 of 2008 was filed challenging the ULC proceedings including G.O.Ms.No.580 dated 04.05.2005 together with all consequential proceedings in File No.G1/13089/76, as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was allowed with the following observations:
7. In N. NARSING RAO's case (3 supra), it was held as under:
"3. The Special Officer and competent authority filed a counter- affidavit wherein all the above facts have been admitted. He has justified reopening of the proceedings and taking all further steps on the ground that the Judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum ((1993) 2 SCC 546) was reversed in N. Audikesava Reddy ((2002) 1 SCC 227) by the Supreme Court.
4. In my opinion, a Judgment rendered based on the law that was in force will not cease to be valid merely because the legal position based on which the Judgment was rendered was subsequently altered. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that while overruling the Judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum (1-supra), the Supreme Court in N. Audikesava Reddy (2-supra) has authorised the Urban Land Ceiling authorities to suo motu reopen the proceedings which were terminated. With the quashing of the two notifications by this Court in W.P. Nos. 3920/1983 and 4502/1984 by Judgment dated 26-8-1993, the proceedings initiated under the Act in respect of the subject lands got terminated. Unless the said Judgment is reversed, the respondents have no power or authority to suo motu reopen the proceedings based on the subsequent change in legal position. In this view of the matter, the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of the petitioners' lands subsequent to the Judgment dated 26-8- 8 1983 in W.P.Nos.3920/1983 and 4502/1984, are declared as void and any orders passed therein as unenforceable..."
8. This Court by order in WP.No.886 of 2012 dated 13.11.2013 dealt with similar issue and held as under:
"In my opinion, respondent No.3 has no power or authority to reopen the proceedings which were already closed following the law that was in force at the time of closing the proceedings. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that respondent No.3 has not even made a reference to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Audikesava Reddy (2-supra). However, on the facts of the case, it is implicit that the only reason for respondent No.3 in reopening the proceedings is the change of law declared by the Supreme Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum (1-supra) as reflected in N. Audikesava Reddy (2-supra). The lands in respect of which the proceedings were closed in the present case are not the subject matter before the Supreme Court in N. Audikesava Reddy (2-supra) nor while reversing the view taken in Atia Mohammadi Begum, the Supreme Court in N. Audikesava Reddy (2-supra) has given blanket power to the authorities in the country under the provisions of the Act to reopen the proceedings which were already closed."
The aforesaid order of the learned single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in WA.No.1091 of 2015 dated 07.06.2024."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6130 of 2016 (Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia v. State of Gujarat) dated 01.06.2026. In the said case, writ petition was filed by the purchasers from the original declarants, challenging the ULC proceedings, contending that the ULC proceedings stood abated under Section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act. The contention of the 9 respondent-Government was that the petitioners-appellants do not have locus standi as the ales were made without obtaining permission from the competent authority and in violation of Section 5(3) of the ULC Act. Having considered the provisions of the ULC Act and particularly Section 10 and the previsions judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280]; State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma [(2015) 5 SCC 321] and AP Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar [2025 SCC OnLine SC 447], held at para 22.8 as follows:
"22.8 Similarly, we are unable to agree with the contention of the respondents that the appellants cannot clam a right to receive notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act. The propriety of the sale deed executed in favour of the appellants is immaterial. Section 10(5) mandates the deliver of notice to the person(s) in possession of the concerned lands. On the date of issuance of notice (22.11.1990), the appellants as possessors did not receive the same. It was sent to the erstwhile owner of the subject land. This also implies that the respondents also were aware of the fact that actual possession was not with them and there 3as a need to issue notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act before taking over actual possession. However, the respondents did not ascertain as to in whose name actual possession stood. Therefore, no notice was issued to the appellants and hence there being no transfer of possession in accordance with Section 10 of the ULC Act, it continues with the appellants both in fact as well as in law. Hence, they are entitled t the benefit of Section 4 of the Repealing Act as they do not fall within the scope of Section 3 of the said Act which is the savings clause. The omission to issue 10 notice to the appellants violated the mandatory requirement of serving notice under Section 10(5) and meant that the legal process of acquiring possession was still ongoing, leading to abatement of proceedings under Section 5 of the Repealing act on it s enforcement."
9. In the instance case, the petitioners purchased the subject property under registered sale deeds dated 02.12.2004. The ULC proceedings, which were closed, were opened by exercising power under Section 34 of the ULC Act vide G.O.Ms.No.580 dated 04.05.2005, much later to the purchase of the subject land by the petitioners. Thus, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6130 of 2016 (Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia v. State of Gujarat) dated 01.06.2026 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and the petitioners, who are in possession of the subject land, ought to have been issued notice and there is violation of mandatory procedure under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J March 10, 2026 DSK