Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Rashtra Dalita Seva Sangham vs Collector And District Magistrate ... on 25 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(3)ALD19, 2004(3)ALT488
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These two writ petitions arise under similar set of facts, and the relief claimed therein is in relation to the same land. Hence they are disposed of together.
2. W.P. No. 3620 of 2003 is filed by Rashtra Dalita Seva Sangam, represented by its President, Muthyala Babu. The writ petition is originally filed against the officials of the Revenue, Urban Land Ceiling and Police Departments. Respondent No. 7, the Industries Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., got itself impleaded as Respondent No. 7. 2880 individuals filed common application to get themselves impleaded in the writ petition. Their application was ordered and were impleaded as respondents in this writ petition. Petitioner claims that it has a membership of about 1,300 persons, hailing from weaker sections of the society. In this writ petition, they seek a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the applications of its members to issue patta certificates and to induct them into possession within a timeframe. To certain extent, Respondents 8 to 2889 is similar in nature.
3. W.P. No. 9423 of 2003 is filed by Banjara Yuvajana Sangham, represented by its General Secretary, R.Shankar Naik. The claim of this sangham is that it has a membership of about 1,600 persons hailing from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC and ST) communities and all of them are hut dwellers. Representations are said to have been made for allotment of house sites in the land in the survey numbers referred to above. It seeks a declaration that non-consideration of representation is violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 21, 46 and 19(1) (e) of the Constitution of India. A consequential direction is also sought to the respondents to consider the cases of its members without any further delay. This writ petition was initially filed against the officials of the Revenue, Urban Land Ceiling and Police Departments. Respondents 7 and 8, which are Co-operative House Building Societies, got themselves impleaded claiming that they hold agreements of sale from the owners of the land.
4. The claim of the petitioners, (hereinafter referred to as "the Associations"), in both the writ petitions is almost similar. They contend that the land in survey numbers referred to have was declared as surplus, under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act"), and thereby, vested in the Government. It is their case that the excess land, which is vested in the Government, has to be distributed to the poor and downtrodden as house sites. They complain that on the basis of the representations made by them, socio economic survey was conducted and their members were found to be eligible to be extended the benefit of allotment of house sites. It is complained that despite the availability of the land and conclusion of socio economic survey, no concrete steps were taken to grant house site pattas. The nature of the relief claimed by them is almost similar.
5. On behalf of the Respondents 1 to 6, in both the writ petitions, counter-affidavits are filed. Various events and proceedings that ensued under the provisions of the Act in respect of the said lands, are referred to, in detail. The gist of their contention is that, the proceedings in respect of that land under the Act are pending at the stage of enquiry under Section 8, on remand by the appellate authority, and unless the land in its entirety, or in part, is declared as excess and vested in the Government, the question of allotment of the same to the members of the petitioners-associations, or other individuals, does not arise. Copious reference is made to the correspondence that took place between the petitioners-associations and the respondents.
6. Respondent No. 7 is common to both the writ petitions. The claim of Respondent No. 8 in W.P. No. 9423 of 2003 is similar to that of Respondent No. 7. These are Co-operative House Building Societies. They contend that the owners of the land have entered into separate agreements of sale in favour of these societies, and on the strength of such agreements, applications for grant of exemption have been processed at various stages, They also contend that the Government had formulated a policy in the recent past, through orders in G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29-7-2002, providing for retention of excess land, and that G.O. Ms. Nos. 457 and 458, respectively, dated 24-3-2003 were issued paving the way for the consideration of their cases also. They urge that the petitioners do not have any legal, much less fundamental rights, vis-a-vis the land.
7. Sri S. Ramchandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel and Sri B.V. Bhakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respective writ petitioners submit that the land in survey numbers referred to above was declared excess and vested in the Government, It is their case that the petitioners have been making representations to the concerned authorities for grant of pattas since last several years. They submit that a socio economic survey was conducted and the members of the associations were found to be eligible to extend the benefit of grant of pattas. They complain that on account of inaction on the part of the respondents, the members of the petitioners-associations are subjected to hardship.
8. Sri Vijay Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Assignments submits that when the proceedings under the Act are only at the stage of enquiry under Section 8 of the Act, the question of the Government having any right to allot pattas in respect of the land, does not arise. He submits that even if the members of the petitioners-Associations are found to be eligible on the basis of the socio economic survey, grant of any relief to them, is subject to the availability of land. It is also his case that persons found eligible under the survey, cannot insist on being granted pattas in respect of a specific land.
9. The learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 8, House Building Societies submit that the petitioners did not have any vested or legal right, vis-a-vis the land, and that the Government does not have any right to deal with the land as the things stand now.
10. The Act was extended to the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1976. The land in Sy.Nos.65 to 78; 82,122,123 to 125 of Saidabad Village and Mandal, admeasuring about 52 acres, is within the urban agglomeration, The land was initially held by one Mr. Yousuf Beig and he sold it to one Mr. Ahmed Mohiuddin in 1330 Fasli. Late Sri Ram Singh was declared as protected tenant in respect of this land, under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1950. Under the scheme of this Act, the owners as well as protected tenants are entitled to share the land. It was in this context, that the legal heirs of the owners, on the one hand, and legal heirs of the protected tenants, on the other, have filed separate declarations under Section 6 of the Act.
11. As regards the declaration filed by the owners namely, Mr.Giyasuddin and Ors., an order was passed under Section 8(4) of the Act on 22-7-1980 declaring that they hold an extent of 4,79,364 sq. metres of land, in excess of ceiling limits. Similar orders were passed in the declaration filed by the protected tenants also. All of them filed appeals under Section 33 of the Act before the appellate authorities.
12. Even while the appeals were pending, the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 640, Revenue Department, dated 18-4-1981, allotting the land in these and certain other survey numbers, in favour of some societies, such as Singareni Collieries Co-operative House Building Society, Sridevi Co-operative House Building Society Limited, and A.P. Government Press Employees Union etc. The G.O. was challenged by the owners, by filing W.P. No. 3140 of 1981. The writ petition was allowed on 9-12-1982 and G.O. Ms. No. 640, dated 18-4-1981 was set aside.
13. The appellate authority dealt with the orders passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, in respect of the said land. After discussing the matter at length, it had set aside the respective orders passed in the cases of the landowners and the protected tenants, as the case may be. Ultimately, the matters were remanded to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, way back in the year 1982 for fresh consideration. From the material placed before the Court, it is evident that proceedings are still pending before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, and fresh orders under Section 8(4) of the Act are yet to be passed.
14. Under the scheme of the Act, the actual determination as to whether a declarant holds any land in excess of the ceiling limits takes place in an order-passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. If the order under Section 8(4) of the Act can be compared to a judgment, the statement prepared under Section 9 is comparable to a decree. The further proceedings are to take place under Section 10, through publication by notifications etc. It is only when a notification under Section 10(3) of the Act is published, that the vacant land, declared as excess, can be said to have vested in the Government. After the land vests in the Government, further proceedings are required to be taken up under Section 11, in the matter of payment of compensation etc. The Act empowers the Government to distribute the lands that vest in it in accordance with the guidelines stipulated therein and policy formulated from time to time. As long as the land does not vest in it, the Government has no power or authority to dispossess the declarants, or deal with the land, for the purpose of distribution to eligible persons or for its own use.
15. Extensive arguments are addressed stating that the members of the petitioners-associations are in possession of certain parcels of the land. Reference is made to various proceedings. So far as W.P. No. 3620 of 2003 is concerned, the relief claimed in the writ petition itself discloses that they seek allotment of house sites and to put them into possession of the same. It suggests that they are not in possession. As regards the petitioners in W.P. No. 9423 of 2003, though the assertions are vague in nature, this Court does not intend to record any finding in this regard.
16. It bears repetition to observe that the proceedings under the Act, in respect of the land in question, are at the initial stage of enquiry under Section 8, may be after remand, and the question of the land being vested in the Government, much less, it being able to deal with it, in the manner it wants, does not arise, at this stage. Even if contention of the petitioners, that their members hail from weaker sections of the society; and were found eligible for extension of the benefit for allotment of house sites in the socio-economic survey, is true, it is doubtful whether they can insist on allotment of any particular piece of land. At any rate, even if the members of the petitioners- associations are eligible and the Government is inclined to accede to their request, it is impermissible in law, for them, to undertake any exercise in respect of the land referred to above, as long as it is not vested in the Government under Section 10(3) of the Act In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioners at this stage. In case, the land vests in the Government under the Act, and such vestiture becomes final, the petitioners-associations can renew their request. Till such stage is reached, no action can be expected from the Respondents 1 to 6, vis-a-vis the land in question.
17. In view of the finding recorded by this Court that the applications of the members of the petitioners-associations cannot be considered at this stage, it is not necessary to refer to the various contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents 7 and 8. The Respondents 8 to 2889, in W.P. No. 3620 of 2003, stand on the same footing as the petitioners.
18. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed, as premature, leaving it open to the petitioners-Associations to renew their request, in case the land in survey numbers referred to above vests in the Government in future. There shall be no order as to costs.