Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ksr Developers (P) Limited vs The Sub Registrar on 4 February, 2026
APHC010545802022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 33348/2022
Between:
1. KSR DEVELOPERS (P) LIMITED, 50-1-23/90, KSR MANSIONS,
SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 530013, REP. BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, KANUMURI VENKATA RAMA RAJU, S/O.
LATE KANUMURI SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 55-14-65,
A.P.S.E.B. COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM
530013.
2. VOKKALAGADDA VENKATA SURESH, S/O. LATE VOKKALAGADDA
VENKATA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.9-358,
NARASIMHA NAGAR, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AT
VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT AT
VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN
LAND CEILING, O/O. DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, VISAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT AT VISAKHAPATNAM.
5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SECRETARY,
REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION) DEPARTMENT,
2
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 (registration authorities) in not entertaining and registering the sale deeds/lease deeds or any other registrations which may be executed and presented by the petitioners with regard to their land in Sy.No.7/2A of Gopalapatnam Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on the ground that the petitioners have to produce/submit the No Objection Certificate from the office of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam, is arbitrary, illegal and ultra-virus the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to entertain and register sale deeds/lease deeds or any other registrations which may be executed and presented by the petitioner in respect of their land in Sy.No.7/2A of Gopalapatnam Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without insisting upon production/submissions of no objection certificate from the office of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam and release the sale deeds/lease deeds or any other registrations so registered to the petitioners and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under 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 direct the respondents 1 and 2 (registration authorities) to entertain and register the sale deeds/lease deeds or any other registrations which may be executed and presented by the petitioners in respect of the land in Sy.No.7/2A of Gopalapatnam village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and release the registered documents without insisting upon the petitioners to produce No Objection Certificate from the office of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the writ petition and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under 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 3 grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No.4 in the W.P.No.33348 of 2022 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following Order:
Heard Sri N. Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. K. Jhani Lakshmi, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General.
2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is against the action of the respondents in not entertaining and registering the sale deeds/lease deeds presented by the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioners have purchased the subject lands of 1580 Sq.yards, 1670 Sq.yards, 3143.20 Sq.yards and 1000 Sq.yards situated in Sy.No.7/2A of Gopalapatnam Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from M/s. LG Polymers India Private Limited which in turn had purchased the same from M/s. Mc Dowel & Company Limited in 2008. It is contended that initially M/s. Hindustan Polymers Limited has purchased the subject land from Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamyvari Devasthanam, 4 Simhachalam. Later M/s Hindustan Polymers Limited was amalgamated with M/s Mc Dowel & Company Limited in 1982. Thus the M/s Mc Dowel & Company Limited became the absolute owner of the property and sold the same in favour of M/s LG Polymers vide registered sale deeds. M/s LG Polymers Limited after thus acquiring the title over the properties sold the same in favour of the petitioners.
4. It is contended that after purchase of the subject land from M/s. LG Polymers India Private Limited, the petitioners are proposing to carryout construction activity on the said properties and are also proposing to sell part of the subject land. In the said connection on approaching the office of the respondent No.1, the petitioners were informed that in order to entertain the documents for registrations the petitioners are under an obligation to submit No Objection Certificate issued by the respondent No.4. It is contended by the petitioners that the respondent No.4 is not the competent authority to issue such a certificate in the light of repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act in 2008, as the respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to act under the repealed provisions of ULC Act, 1976. Thus prays for a direction to the respondents to entertain the sale deeds, lease deeds that may be presented by them for execution without insisting for submission No Objection Certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority.
5. The respondents filed their counter affidavit stating that M/s Hindustan Polymers Limited filed declaration under Section 6(1) of ULC Act, 1976 declaring the properties held by them. After conducting of enquiry by the 5 competent authority, the declarant - M/s Hindustan Polymers Limited was declared as surplus holder of an extent of Ac.76.9585 Hectares. On the application made by M/s Hindustan Polymers Limited as provided under Section 20 (1) (a) of the ULC Act, vide G.O.Ms.No.1033, dated 08.10.1982, the said extent was exempted from ceiling in favour of M/s Hindustan Polymers Limited subject to a condition that the lands must be used for industrial purposes. Alleging that the said company did not use the land for the purpose for which it was granted. Notices were issued for cancellation of the exemption. Subsequently, the Government had allowed the M/s Hindustan Polymers Limited to transfer the lands in favour of M/s LG Chemicals Limited, LG Group, South Korea for industrial purposes subject to certain conditions that the land should be used for petro-chemical industry and should not be sold without permission of the Government and within three years the proposed investment should be brought in. Subsequently, on inspection by the respondent No.4 on noticing that the M/s LG Chemicals Limited has violated the conditions of exemption, a show cause notice, dated 22.05.2013 was issued proposing for cancellation of orders of exemption.
6. M/s LG Polymers Limited (erstwhile M/s LG Chemicals Limited) filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.21934 of 2013 observing that:
"As such the State is, accordingly held to be denuded of any jurisdiction or power under Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and consequently the impugned show cause notice is without jurisdiction and accordingly quashed".6
7. Aggrieved by the above orders, Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1087/2015 was filed against the judgment in W.P.No.21934 of 2013 before the erstwhile composite High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. The said appeal was dismissed on 14.02.2020 observing that:
"The orders passed by the learned single judge is exhaustive, rightly dealing all the issues and in accordance with law, which do not warrant interference in this appeal".
8. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have not shown cause of action as the petitioners have not submitted any documents seeking registration in appropriate form along with requisite registration fee and stamp duty. Thus it is contended that there is no cause of action for filing the instant Writ Petition.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. Subba Rao, placing reliance on the judgment of the erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.21934 of 2013, dated 28.03.2014 prays for a direction to the respondents to receive, the documents that may be submitted by the petitioners for registrations, and register the same as presented by the petitioners.
10. Considered the rival submissions. It is relevant to extract relevant portion of the above referred judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.21934 of 2013 which reads as follows:
"9. The Repeal Act specifically declares that all proceedings under the ULC Act not saved Under Section 3 of the Repeal Act stand abated. A bare reading of Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act shows that the 7 Government is required to show not only the vesting of the land under Section 10(3) but also taking over of possession of such land. The Government has placed strong reliance upon sub-clause 2(a) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act and it is contended that the Repeal Act does not affect the land vested in the State under sub-section (3) of Section 10 even if the possession of the land is not taken. It is also contended that in all cases where exemption under Section 20(1) of the ULC Act is given when the vacant lands are held surplus, such lands have to be treated, as deemed to have been vested in the Government, as contemplated under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act. In other words, the contention raised by the Government is that the fact that the lands are exempted by the Government under Section 20 means that the lands are vested or deemed to have been vested in the State but for the exemption granted. Hence, placing reliance upon Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, it is contended that rights accrued to the State are not taken away by the Repeal Act and as such, the action of the Government in issuing the impugned show cause notice is valid and cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
14. The issue also can be examined from another angle viz. assuming that the State passes an order of withdrawal of exemption, in pursuance of a show cause notice, however, the ULC Act is no more in force and the Government cannot take possession of the land under any of the provisions of the Repeal Act. The power of the State to proceed against the petitioner company after the Repeal Act, being not traceable to any other law, the impugned show cause notice even otherwise is not sustainable. Going further, even the impugned show cause notice only has to be traced to Section 20 of the ULC Act and not to any other provisions and since the principal Act itself does not survive, no other statutory power exist in the Government either calling upon the petitioner to show cause against withdrawal of exemption or for proceeding further in the matter including action as to withdrawal of exemption. As such the State is, accordingly, held to be denuded of any jurisdiction or power under the ULC Act, 1976 and consequently, the impugned show cause notice is without jurisdiction and accordingly quashed."
11. The issue that arises in the instant case is squarely covered by the above principle of law, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to 8 dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to receive the sale deeds that may be executed and presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject lands without insisting for submission of No Objection Certificate issued by the Special Officer and Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling).
12. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 04.02.2026 MSI 9 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 33348/2022 Dated: 04.02.2026 MSI