Lalitesh Kumar Katragadda, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 December, 2022

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Lalitesh Kumar Katragadda, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 December, 2022

Bench: D.Ramesh

                  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

                    WRIT PETITION No.8280 of 2020
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to a direction calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.115 Revenue (Land-IV) Department dated 23.4.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the damages.

2. It is submitted that property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.82cents and an extent of Ac.6.00acres of land in Sy.No.81/1 and 83/3 corresponding to Sy.No.81/3P and governed by Patta No. 165, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam originally belonged to one J.Bhuvaneshwar Das. The State Government u/Sec. 3(a) of the Urban Land (ceiling and Regulation) Repealed Act, 1999 issued G.O.Ms. No.747 dated 18.06.2008 for allotment of excess land which was taken by the Government under the Principal Act, 1976 to the land owners/declarants/third parties subject to the conditions mentioned in the G.O. The legal heirs of the original owner made applications to the Government for allotment of land. The Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam had sent individual reports on each of the legal heir's application and the same were considered by the Government and issued G.O.Ms.No.926 dated 31.8.2009 for an extent of 20,465.10 sq. yds and G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 01.8.2009 for an extent of 2686.1 sq. 2 yds. After issuance of G.O. in favour of the allottees, all the allottees have executed a registered agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney with possession and petitioner was put in possession. A compound of fencing wall is constructed around the entire allotted area and there are various fruit bearing trees and the petitioner has also constructed two temporary structures. Considering the possession of the petitioner, GVMC also imposed Vacant Land Tax. Petitioner also made an application to GVMC seeking permission for construction of a function hall and the same was granted vide B.A.No.13849/2015/ACP- IV/G2 dated 20.4.2016 with certain conditions.

3. It is further stated that one Yellapu Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Appa Rao, claiming to be in possession is also claiming title to the property on the basis of an unregistered sale deed and has filed WP.No.5419/2011 in this Hon'ble High Court questioning the order issued by the government in GOMs.No.926 dated 31.08.2009 wherein they sought for a declaration that the issuance of GOMS.No.926 dated 31.08.2009 is without jurisdiction and contrary to GOMS.No.747 dt:

18.06.2008 and also sought for a consequential direction to regularize the land in favour of the writ petitioners therein. The petitioners therein have raised certain objection with regard to the suppression of facts.

However, the Hon'ble Court without going into the merits of the contention raised, the Hon'ble Court observed that- 3

"It is left open to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law in the event it is found that the impugned GO was issued on account of any fraud or misrepresentation and dismissed the writ petition with costs and found the writ petitioner for guilty of Contempt of Court and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and that order became final."

4. After dismissal of the WP No. 5419/2011, the writ petitioner in there Mr. Y. Nageswara Rao have made a representation to the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue on 21.02.2013 with a reference to the order passed in W.P.No.5419/2011 and requested the authorities to set aside GOMS No.926 issued in favour of the vendors of the present writ petitioner, the Hon'ble Minister has forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent herein and who in turn has forwarded to the 3rd respondent herein for enquiry. The 3rd respondent made an enquiry and submitted a report to the Government. Basing on the said report, the 1st respondent herein issued a show cause notice dated 05.10.2013 to petitioner's vendors as to why G.O.Ms.No.926 should not be cancelled. On that, one of the vendors has filed contempt case in the Hon'ble High Court in C.C.No.83/2014 contending that the issuance of the show cause notice on the basis of the report submitted by the 3rd respondent based on the representation submitted by the petitioner in W.P.No.5419/2011 and which was dismissed on 03.12.2011 as itself is illegal. When the contempt petition came up for hearing, the government issued a Memo No.47786/UC.1/2013 dated 19.04.2014 wherein it is clearly mentioned that "as the proceedings are initiated on 4 the representation of Sri.Y.Nageswara Rao, whom the Hon'ble High court seriously reprimanded in W.P.No.5419/2011 the issuance of the said notice at the instance of Sri.Y.Nageswara Rao may attract the contempt of the orders of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No. 5419/2011. Hence the show cause notice issued vide Memo No.47786/UC.1/2013 dated 05.10.2013 and further action in pursuance of the said show cause notice is hereby withdrawn". The Hon'ble High Court has recorded the same in the order and closed the contempt case.

5. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent herein again issued a Show cause notice dated 25.11.2014 as to why the GO issued in favour of the vendors of the petitioners should not be cancelled in Memo No.47786/ULC and L Ref-II/2013 dated 25.11.2014 referring to orders passed by Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.5419/2011, wherein the liberty is given to the 1st respondent to take any action for cancellation of GOMs. No.926 dated 31.08.2009 if it was issued on account of fraud or misrepresentation. After referring to the observations in the said order and the report of the 3rd respondent submitted on 04.04.2013 and 12.08.2013, the 1st respondent has observed that the issue was placed before the District Level Committee and committee has opined that the holders of 8(4) orders were not in physical possession of the land and five applicants have not paid the total requisite amount calculated as per the provisions given in GO 5 (Annexure-II) which is against the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.747 and finally recommended that the subject land should be retained by the government duly cancelling the orders issued in GOMS.No.926 dated 31.08.2009 as the applicants obtained regularization orders without physical possession of the land and subject land is a prime one. Basing on the recommendations made in the report of 2nd respondent dated 06.09.2013, 1st respondent has issued the show cause notice.

6. Explaining to the said show cause notice, it is submitted that the report of special officer, Urban Land ceiling, Visakhapatnam dated 04.04.2013, 12.08.2013 and 06.09.2013 is invalid on the ground that earlier on the basis of the very same report, a memo was issued by the Government on 05.10.2013 and a contempt case was filed and the said proceedings were withdrawn by the Government. And also submitted that the said amount was paid by demand drafts and regarding the non-disclosure of pendency of writ petition, it was within the knowledge of the Government at the time of issuance of G.O. and also as per the report of Special Officer dated 04.04.2013, 12.08.2019 it is clearly mentioned that land was in petitioner's possession and also submitted that the said amount was paid by demand drafts and regarding the non-disclosure of pendency of writ petition, it was within the knowledge of the Government at the time of issuance of G.O. and also submitted 6 in the report of Special Officer dated 04.04.2013, 12.08.2019 it is clearly mentioned that land is in petitioner's possession.

7. After considering the contentions raised by the GPA holders of the allottees, 1st respondent submitted a report recommending to the government for cancellation of G.O.Ms.No.926 as it is obtained fraudulently and misrepresenting the facts. Thereafter, Government cancelled the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.926 vide and directed the 3rd respondent to resume the land following due process of law. Following which the staff came to the site, erected a board cautioning the public and sealed the gates without following the due process of law. It is submitted that the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 23.04.2020 in G.O.M.S.No.115 was passed after 6 years since the issuance of show cause notice. The provisions of G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008 nor the Repealed Act empower the government to review the orders passed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.747. In the show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent there are no specific details regarding the alleged fraud and misrepresentation. The respondents issued the show cause notice dated 25.11.2014 on the very same basis of the earlier show cause notice which was withdrawn.

8. It is further submitted that admittedly there is no dispute with regard to title of the allottees and their names are reflected in the orders passed under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act. In the 2009 reports of 7 spl officer, he clearly observed that the allottees are in possession of the property. The two grounds on which the impugned order is passed are no grounds to exercise the power of review or the said grounds fall within the parameters laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 5419/2011 and WP.No.27205/2014.

9. With regard to the allegation that besides the W.P.No.10974/2009, there are two more Writ Petitions 21315 of 2009 and WP. No. 5166 of 2008 were pending and they were not brought to the notice of the government, it is submitted that in the report sent by the then special officer, ULC, it was clearly mentioned about the said writ petitions. However, they were already dismissed as withdrawn. The aforesaid aspects were clearly mentioned in the explanation, but the 1st respondent did not take the explanation into consideration. The Zonal Commissioner, Zone-IV, GVMC, Visakhapatnam has addressed a letter to the petitioner on 16.04.2020 requesting to give consent for establishing a temporary vegetable selling market in my premises which implies the ownership. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent had not given any reasons for passing the impugned order. This Hon'ble court was pleased to pass an interim order in W.P.No.8130 of 2020 on 26.03.2020 directing the Revenue, Municipal authorities not to resort to the acts of dispossession or demolitions for a period of two months. In spite of the same, respondents high handedly evicted the 8 watchman and his pregnant wife by using police force and demolished hoardings of bakery existing in the premises.

10. Considering the said facts this Court has passed the following interim order on 28.4.2020.

..."The respondent State is also directed to maintain the status quo existing and not to carry out any activity whatsoever in the said site or allot the same to third parties etc. The situation existing on the ground should be preserved till the matter is heard."

11. Reply to the contentions of the petitioner, the 1st respondent has filed counter in which it is stated that the land admeasuring an extent of Hec.4.2280 sq.mtrs covered by Sy.No.s 81/1 and 3 of Marripalem village of Vishakhapatnam Mandal (presently in Gopalapatnam Mandal) originally belonging to one Sri Josyula Bhuvaneshwar Das, he has filed declaration u/S.6(1) of the Urban Land(ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. Thereafter S.10(5) notices were issued and on the order under S.10(6) was issued on 12-10-1992. Later the land was allotted to Society for Employment and Training, Visakhapatnam (SETVIS) by the government u/S.23 of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.1156 Revenue (UC-I) Department dated 20-12-1991. But the SETVIS did not utilize the same for public purpose for which it was allotted. As such the same was allotted to Visakha Urban Development Authority (VUDA) vide G.O.Ms.No. 348 dated 16.4.1994. The petitioner has made a representation after 11 years i.e., on 01.7.2005 and approached this Hon'ble Court in 9 W.P.No.16711 of 2005 seeking a direction to consider his representation which was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider his representation. Pursuant to that he made two more representations dated 06.01.2006 and 06.11.2006 but the same were rejected by the Special Officer, ULC vide his order dated 09.11.2006. On that contempt was filed bearing C.C.No.915 of 2006 and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to close the contempt on 29.01.2008 giving liberty to J.Satyanarayana Das and others to pursue appropriate remedy. Instead of approaching the appropriate forum, J.Satyanarayana Das and others filed another W.P.No.5166 of 2008. Thereafter, the aforesaid land was regularised vide G.O.Ms.No.926 in favour of J.Satyanarayana Das, who was the legal heir of J.Bhubaneswar Das on the recommendation given by the special officer, even though the petitioners therein did not satisfy the criteria prescribed for such regularization.

12. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the above surplus land was allotted to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) Limited for establishment of IT Industries Vide G.O.Ms.No.774 dated 07.06.2007. Subsequently, the same was kept in abeyance vide G.O.Ms.No.803 dated 12.06.2007 owing to the pendency of contempt proceedings. As the possession over the subject land was taken way back in 1994, the land is vested with Government only. 10 Further, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008 issued policy guidelines for allotment of excess lands which are already under occupation of 3rd parties and declarants in core and peripheral areas subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. Some of the conditions which are appropriate for the case on hand are reproduced below:

i. These orders shall not apply to the cases where allotment of land has already been made by the Government prior to these orders and decided to be retained by the Government for public purpose.

ii. The allotment shall be subject to withdrawal of all litigations filed either by the occupant of excess land, or the excess land holder, or any other interested person and pending, other than those covered under the Repeal Act relating to the excess land as on the date of this G.O. iii. The allotment shall be subject to payment of amount to Government at the rates indicated separately for each agglomeration in Schedule-I iv. Allotment under these orders shall be confined to:

a. Excess land in the occupation of third parties, (other than the excess land holder or his successors) where such occupation is evidenced by a registered document of purchase from the excess land holder or person claiming through him/her regardless of the fact of such land being covered by a structure or not.

b. Excess land in the occupation of land owner / declarant / his or her successor with or without structure where such occupation i. is evidenced by the latest orders us 8(4) of the repealed Act.

c. Allotment of vacant surplus land in favour of third party occupants, not covered by any registered document of purchase shall not be considered under these orders.

d. Further, as per the last paragraph of the said G.O, the Government shall be competent to refuse or reject any case of allotment of excess land, even though it otherwise satisfies all the conditions prescribed in this order, if such allotment of excess land with or 11 without structures thereon is not in public interest or if such land is required for a public purpose. The decision of the Government in this regard shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law. In cases where allotment is refused or rejected, the compensation amounts paid along with application shall be refunded without any interest to the applicant.

13. In the year 2009, Sri. J.Satyanarana Das and 14 others, who are declarants/family members of the declarants have applied for regularization of surplus land admeasuring 17,135 sq. meters in terms of G.O.Ms.No.747 Dated 18.06.2008 as if they were in occupation of surplus land resumed to Government. Accordingly, the then Special Officer & CA, Visakhapatnam has submitted proposals to the Government. Further, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.926 Dt.31.08.2009 issued orders regularizing the above said land in favour of them. Thereafter, one Sri Yellapu Nageswara Rao has filed a complaint petition before the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, A.P., Hyderabad alleging that his mother Smt. Yellapu Raghavamma had purchased the land from Sri Josyula Bhuvaneswar Das in the year 1965, but Sri Josyula Satyanarayana das and others obtained regularization orders in their favour illegally. The then Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam has enquired into the matter and found that the individuals who have obtained regularization orders in their favour are not in possession of the land and obtained orders irregularly.

14. The matter was placed before the District Level Screening Committee. The Committee has opined that the holders of 8(4) orders i.e., Josyula family did not have physical possession over the land and this aspect was also agreed by the then Special Officer, ULC from 10.04.1994 the land has been in the continuous possession of VUDA, and that 05 applicants namely 1) Srinivas Misra 2) Gowri Prasad Gripati 3) J.Indira Das 4) J.Manorama Das and 5) J.Manoranjan Das have not paid the total requisite amount and this is ultravires and finally recommended that the land should be retained by the Government duly rejecting the claim of the applicants. The observations of the district level screening committee were submitted to the Government by the then S.O. ULC, Visakhapatnam Vide Lr.CC No.4567176 B2 Dt. 12.08.2013 duly recommending to cancel the regulation orders issued vide G.O.Ms. No.926 Dt.31.8.2009. Further, the ACB and Vigilance authorities have also enquired into the matter and submitted their confidential reports to the Government. Thereafter, the Govt, vide Memo No.47786/ULC & L.REFs-2/2013 Revenue (ULC & L.REFs.) Department Dated 25.11.2014 have issued show-cause notice to the allottees as to why the land regularization orders should not be cancelled since they obtained the same by misrepresentation of facts without having possession over the land and also while pending of court cases on the claim land. The original 13 allottees did not submit reply to the show cause notice. But, one Sri N.Somasekhar, who is claimed to be GPA holder of allottees has submitted reply to the Government 10.12.2014. But the present writ petitioner Sri Lalitesh Kumar Katragaddaa who is also claimed to be G.P.A holder of the allottees has not submitted any reply to the Government.

15. Meanwhile a writ petition No.5419/2011 was also filed before this Hon'ble High Court against the government and also Jyosula family which was dismissed with costs and liberty is given to 1st respondent (Prl. Secretary to Government, Revenue Dept.) to take appropriate action against respondent No.2 if any of these reports indicate latter (fraud or misrepresentation). The dismissal of this Writ Petition also shall not be understood as this Court upholding the validity of the impugned G.O. issued in favour of the private respondents.

16. After passing orders u/s.10(6) of the Urban Land (ceiling &Regulation) Act, 1976 on 12.10.1992, possession of the land was taken and handed over to VUDA and the declarants were not in possession of the land, they deliberately suppressed the facts and got the regularization orders by misrepresentation. The fencing around the subject land was also laid down by VUDA and there are only 9 mango trees and except the name board of Bakery there is no bakery running in the disputed site. After having obtained the land vide G.O.Ms. 14 No.926 Dt.31.08.2009 the allottees or the present petitioner might have occupied the land. But the issue is regarding possession at the time of regularization.

17. The Government, after having examined all these issues have issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.115 Revenue (Lands-IV) Dept. Dt.23.04.2020 duly cancelling the orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.926 Revenue (UC.I) Department dt.31-08-2009 and also directed the Special Officer and the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam to resume the land by following the due process of law. Accordingly, the subject land measuring an extent of 17,135 Sq. Mtrs in Sy.No.81/3 of Marripalem Village of Gopalapatnam Mandal, which was allotted to Sri Josyula Satyanarayana Das and others, was resumed to Government on 24.04.2020 in the presence of the mediators by conducting Pancahnama and at present the land is in the possession of the Tahsildar, Gopalapatnam Mandal.

18. In the order passed in WP NO.5419/2011 the court also observed that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not be understood as this court upholding the validity of the impugned G.O. issued in favour of the private respondents. The respondent has agreed the withdrawal of the Show cause notice dated 05.102013 vide Memo No.47789/UC.I/2013 dated 19.04.2014 and also agreed that upon the complaint petition filed by Sri Yellapu Nageswararao, the then SO, ULC, 15 Visakhapatnam has enquired into the matter. It is true that at the time of enquiry in the year 2013, the petitioner was in possession. But the question is whether they were in possession at the time of filing for application for regularization orders and when the matter got enquired into by the then Special Officer & CA, ULC Visakhapatnam and found that they were not in possession of the land, this aspect was also agreed by one of Josyula the family member i.e. Josyula Vijaya Kumar Das as per statements recorded on 30-03-2013 by the then SO, ULC, Visakhapatnam. With regard to the issue of payment of amount by 5 applicants, it is submitted that they have not paid the amount at the time of submission of proposals to the Government for regularization of surplus land, they paid after issuance of regularization orders vide G.O.Ms.No.926 dt.31.08.2009. The government has issued show cause notice and has vacated one watchman residing in site by informing him the facts and he wilfully vacated the premises. As such respondents have followed the due process of law.

19. Replying with regard to the allegation that neither the G.O.Ms.No 747 dated 18.06.2008 nor the repealed Act empower the Government to review the orders passed in terms of G.O.M.S No. 747 it is submitted that since the government have every right to review the orders obtained fraudulently on misrepresentation and suppression of facts. Further the Hon'ble High court has also given the liberty to 1st 16 respondent. The excess land will be regularized u/s 8(4) only when it is in the possession of land owner/declarant/his or her successor only and regularization orders shall not apply to the cases where allotment of land has already been made by the Government prior to these orders and decided to be retained by the Government for public purpose. And the Josyula family did not have physical possession over the land at the time of making application for regularization of land. It is clearly mentioned in the show cause notice issued on 25.11.2014 by the 1st respondent that the subject lands were handed over to the VUDA way back in 1994.

20. It is submitted that if the cancellation orders were issued basing on the previous memo dated 05.10.2013, the petitioner can raise objection. But the cancellation orders were issued after giving an opportunity as to why it should not be cancelled which was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation to which neither the petitioner representing to be the GPA holder of allottees nor the vendors of the petitioner has submitted any explanation. As Such the government has cancelled after following the due process.

21. Replying with regard to no specific allegation it is submitted that there are specific allegations of playing fraud without having possession over the land which is crucial aspect in terms of G.O.Ms.No.747 and other aspects were also clearly mentioned. It is submitted that the 17 petitioner has no locus standi to file present writ petition as he has no clear title. When the title of his vendors is under dispute, he cannot get any relief on the plea that he has purchased the same from his vendors for consideration of value. The Zonal commissioner, GVMC might have addressed a letter requesting the petitioner to give consent for establishing a vegetable selling market due to covid-19 situation, but that would not confer any title over the land. Further, the petitioner has not resumed the land regularized in G.O.M.S No.123 dt 10.02.2010. It is submitted that there was no demolition against the interim order granted in W.P.No.8130 of 2020 on 26.03.2020 and the land was also resumed peacefully. The possession of the land in dispute was taken way back in the year 1992 after having passed orders u/s 10(6) of the ULC Act 1976, and the same was handed over to the VUDA. As such the land has been in possession of VUDA since 1994. After lapse of 15 years the declarants and their heirs have applied for regularization.

22. It is submitted the petitioner being a GPA holder of original allottees, he is supposed to act on behalf of the original allottees only, but deliberately stating that he has obtained Vacant Land Tax assessment as well as building plan approval in his favour without having clear title over the land in dispute. As per the provision of G.O.Ms.No.747 Dt. 18.06.2008, the decision of the Government in allotting the excess land or to refuse or reject shall be final and shall 18 not be questioned in any court of law. In cases where allotment is refused or rejected, the compensation amounts paid along with application shall be refunded without any interest to the applicant. Though, the allottees obtained regularization orders fraudulently by misrepresentation and suppression of facts, it is decided to refund the amount on humanitarian grounds and action has already been initiated to refund the total amount of Rs.5,75,91,450/- (Rupees Five Crore Seventy-five Lakh Ninety-one thousand four hundred and fifty only) to the allottees. The Notices are also being issued to the allottees to furnish the details of their bank accounts.

23. Basing on the above pleadings learned senior counsel Sri O.Manohar Reddy appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioners are claiming the land by virtue of Section 8(4) of Urban Land Ceiling Act where an order is passed after considering the objections raised against the regularization of the land. That during hearing of the W.P.No.20759 of 2009 petitioners in that writ petition sought for vigilance report from respondent No.1 on allegations made against respondent No.2 including the illegality committed by her in regularizing the subject land in favour of the private respondents where in the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted the ACB report in a sealed cover in which it is stated that among the allegations levelled against her, the allotment of subject land relates to item no.12 and the said item no.12 is the subject 19 property of the writ petition after thorough verification of records it was found that the allegations relating to item No.12 are not substantiated.

24. The then Special Officer, Urban Land ceiling in his report to the Principal Secretary dated 18.05.2009 submitted covering the orders passed under section 10(6) and the allotments of land to different authorities and also the writ petitions filed against the subject land by the co declarants and after self-inspection expressed his desirability that the surplus extent of 1871 sq.mtrs be allotted in favour of Sri Vijaya Kumar Das. It is pertinent to mention that W.P.27205 of 2013 is filed by original allottees on apprehension that the official respondents may enlarge the scope of enquiry, wherein the Hon'ble court declined to interdict and disposed of the writ petition reiterating the observations made by this court in W.P.No.5419 of 2011.

25. It is contended that the initial show cause notice dated 05-10-2013 which was initiated on the representation of Sri Y.Nageswara Rao, whom this Hon'ble court had seriously reprimanded was withdrawn by Principal Secretary (dated 19.04.2014) for the reason that it may attract contempt against the official respondents. It is further submitted that G.O.Ms.116 issued cancelling the G.O.Ms.No.926 on the ground that it has obtained fraudulently and misrepresenting the facts. The main reasons for withdrawal are 5 allottees have not paid requisite fee and the petitioners suppressed the facts pertaining to filing of writ petitions. With regard to the allegation of the deficit fee which was also raised in the earlier show 20 cause notice fee has already been paid immediately after issuing G.O.Ms.No.926 and the aspect is very much within the knowledge of Government at the time of passing the orders. With regard to the allegation of pendency of writ petitions, a reading of the then Special Officer's report to the Government clearly shows the disclosure of the writ petitions 1) W.P.No.21315 of 2008 which was filed by third parties and was dismissed 2) W.P.No:5166 of 2008 filed by allottees was withdrawn on 09.12.2009 and 3) the other writ petition No.10974 of 2009 filed by Y.Nageswara Rao and others and the same was disposed of prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.926 which ought not have taken into account. Out of three writ petitions, two writ petitions were filed by third parties as such petitioners are not concerned with them and the writ petition filed by the allottees was also withdrawn. As there was no writ petition pending at the time of allotment, respondents cannot say that the petitioner has played fraud by suppressing the facts. It is further contended that except repeating the words fraud and misrepresentation there are no specific details of the alleged fraud played by the allottees for getting the land allotted in their favour. With regard to the possession of allottees is concerned surveyor's verification in the presence of the then Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling states that the allottees are in possession of the subject property. Even the latest report of special officer ULC dt.04.04.2013 states that the land is in occupation of Mr.Lalitesh who is a 21 subsequent purchaser. The G.O.Ms.No.926 itself speaks withdrawal of initial allotment of land to State's organization.

27. It is contended that this Hon'ble court specifically directed the 1st respondent to afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing any adverse order but no such opportunity was given and the impugned order is passed after a period of 6 years from the date of issuance of said show cause notice. It is further contended that neither the provisions of G.O.M.S.No.747 dated 18.06.2008 nor the repealed Act empower the government to review the orders passed in terms of G.O.M.S.No.747.Hence the 1st respondent has no authority to review the orders passed vide G.O.M.s No.926 dated 31.08.2009 when the allegations made in the show cause notice does not fall within the parameters mentioned in WP No.5419/2011. As such the order passed by the 1st respondent is illegal and without any jurisdiction. Contrary to the observations of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.5419 of 2011 to which State is also a party, Government has passed impugned order cancelling the G.O.Ms.No.926.

28. After withdrawing the 1st Show cause notice, again on the very same basis, the present impugned show cause notice dated 25.11.2014 was issued. The 1st respondent has passed orders basing on the findings of the committee. This Hon'ble court in W.P no 5419 of 2011 filed by third party has noted that the petitioner therein has suppressed the facts and the petition is liable to be thrown out for the conduct of the petitioners. Upon such person's representation a show cause notice was issued to the 22 vendors of the petitioner. When a contempt is filed against the issuance of show cause notice basing on the representation of Sri. Y. Nageswara rao, the notice was withdrawn and thereby the said contempt was closed. The second report of Special Officer dated 04.04.2013 in which one of the family members i.e., Josyula Vijayakumar Das(GPA Holder)made a statement that the land title and orders u/S.8(4) are in favour of the allottees and the physical possession and enjoyment is in favour of them. This position should have brought to the notice of the government by the then Spl. Officer and competent authority through his report while sending the proposals to take a suitable decision by the government.

29. It is further contended that a person who is likely to face adverse consequences of any administrative or quasi-judicial order has to be given notice where in it has to be precisely informed about the allegations upon which action is proposed and an adequate opportunity has to be given to explain but in the case at hand no such information was given in the notice to the petitioner. It is contended that one Smt. Brundavathi Mahapatro, W/o.Mahadeva Mahapatro APL Applicant of Visakhapatnam has sought for allotment of an extent of 1870 sq.mts of surplus land in S.No.81/3D of Marripalem village in terms of G.O.M.s No.747. on that the special officer, ULC submitted a report to the Principal Secretary Government wherein she observed that the applicant is in occupation of the property since 1981 thereby recommending to allot surplus extent of 23 1870 sq.mts in S.No.81/3D of Marripalem Village, Visakhapatnam in favour of Smt.Brundavathi Mahapatro.

30. Refuting to the above, the learned Advocate General has made the following submissions.

The learned Advocate General has contended that the petitioners in W.P.No.5419 of 2011 have misread the G.O.Ms.No.747 in the sense that regularization of the excess land in the occupation of third parties, where such occupation is evidenced by a registered document of purchase from the excess land owner (or) person claiming through him/her regardless of the fact of such land being covered by a structure or not and the same has no application to the declarants or persons claiming through them. Hence the Respondents therein or his successors are not entitled for regularization. He further submitted that G.O.M.s 747 specifically contemplates 2 situations, which are "allotment of land to third parties in occupation" /or "Land owners" but not only to third parties.

31. As it is the contention of the private respondents in the W.P. 5419 of 2011 that the petitioners there in have not come to the court with clean hands, and this Hon'ble court keeping in mind the interparty suit, earlier writ petitions and filing of contempt by suppressing facts has observed that the writ be dismissed without going into the merits and has given liberty to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action if the impugned G.O. was issued on account of any fraud or misrepresentation. In view of the above said order, the 1st respondent has conducted enquiry and found 24 that the petitioners obtained the said G.O by suppressing the facts, as such issued the order vide G.O.M.s 116 cancelling the G.O.M.s 747.

32. In the above said writ petition adjudication happened is about the conduct of party, and this Court has neither gone into the validity of fraud nor into the merits of procedure of GO and has given liberty to the 1st respondent i.e., State to take appropriate action. Then state has looked into GO and has passed the order on the liberty given by this Court. The petitioners in W.P.No.5419 made a claim on the subject land on set of transactions under sale deed dated 18.10.2015 purchased by their mother from one Josyula Bhuvaneswara Das, When the special officer threatened to evict them from land without passing any order on their representation, they filed W.P.No.10947 of 2008 wherein this Hon'ble Court directed to consider their representation. Despite of the said order, the then special Officer made a recommendation to government for allotment of their land to third parties and consequentially government passed G.O.M.s 926 rejecting his representation as he has no document to prove his title. When writ petitioner seeks enforcement of GO they are required to make this Court understand their basis to claim such right; the onus is on the petitioner to show that G.O. 926 is in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.747.

33. The learned Advocate General has further contended that the present impugned orders are not reviewing but recalling the order passed by them as it was passed on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioners herein has willfully suppressed the facts regarding the filing of 25 writ petitions thereby played fraud and misrepresented in obtaining the G.O.926, hence the State has every power to recall the orders, if it obtained by playing fraud. To support his contentions he has relied on the following judgments.

1. Commissioner of Customs v. Essar Oil Ltd.,1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recited that:

30. A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage.

31. "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures there from although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8 SCC 319] .)

32. "Fraud" and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to "wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares". It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary "fraud" in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage 1 (2004)11 SCC 364 26 against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, "fraud" is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines "fraud" as act committed by a party to a contract with intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise, fraud arises out of deliberate active role of the representator about a fact, which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of a fact with knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case i.e. Derry v. Peek [(1886-90) All ER Rep 1 :

(1889) 14 AC 337 : 58 LJ Ch 864 : 61 LT 265 (HL)] what constitutes "fraud" was described thus (All ER p. 22 B-C):

"[F]raud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false."

But "fraud" in public law is not the same as "fraud" in private law. Nor can the ingredients, which establish "fraud" in commercial transaction, be of assistance in determining fraud in administrative law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in Khawaja v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt. [(1983) 1 All ER 765 : 1984 AC 74 : (1982) 1 WLR 948 (HL)] , that it is dangerous to introduce maxims of common law as to effect of fraud while determining fraud in relation to statutory law. "Fraud" in relation to statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a statute.

" 'If a statute has been passed for some one particular purpose, a court of law will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the operation of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its scope.' Present-day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is 27 developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a section on existence or non- existence of which power can be exercised. But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement. 'In a contract every person must look for himself and ensures that he acquires the information necessary to avoid bad bargain.' In public law the duty is not to deceive."

(See Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. [(1992) 1 SCC 534] , SCC p. 554, para 20.)

33. In that case it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 553, para 20) "20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act defines fraud as act committed by a party to a contract with intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case Derry v. Peek [(1886-90) All ER Rep 1 : (1889) 14 AC 337 : 58 LJ 28 Ch 864 : 61 LT 265 (HL)] what constitutes fraud was described thus:

(All ER p. 22 B-C) 'Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.' "

34. This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal [(2002) 1 SCC 100 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 97] , Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education [(2003) 8 SCC 311] , Ram Chandra Singh case [(2003) 8 SCC 319] and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(2004) 3 SCC 1]

35. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (See Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust [(1996) 3 SCC 310] and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu case [(1994) 1 SCC 1] .)

36. "Fraud" is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav case [(2003) 8 SCC 311] .

37. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 2 WLR 502 (CA)] Lord Denning observed at QB pp. 712 and 713 : (All ER p. 345 C) "No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."

In the same judgment Lord Parker, L.J. observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity (p. 722).

2. Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recited that:

10. A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1])

11. "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letters or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letters. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give 2 (2005) 7 SCC 605 29 reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8 SCC 319] .)

12. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. [(1992) 1 SCC 534] , it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 553, para 20) "Fraud" and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Camus, who exulted in his ability to, "wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares". It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary "fraud" in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Law Dictionary, "fraud" is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines "fraud" as an act committed by a party to a contract with intent to deceive another. From the dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of the deliberate active role of the representator about a fact, which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with knowledge that it was false.

In a leading English case i.e. Derry v. Peek [(1886-90) All ER Rep 1 : 30

(1889) 14 AC 337 : 61 Lt 265 (HL)] what constitutes "fraud" was described thus: (All ER p. 22 B-C) "Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false."

But "fraud" in public law is not the same as "fraud" in private law. Nor can the ingredients, which establish "fraud" in commercial transaction, be of assistance in determining fraud in administrative law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in Khawaja v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt. [(1983) 1 All ER 765 : 1984 AC 74 : (1982) 1 WLR 948 (HL)] that it is dangerous to introduce maxims of common law as to the effect of fraud while determining fraud in relation of statutory law. "Fraud" in relation to the statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a statute.

" 'If a statute has been passed for some one particular purpose, a court of law will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the operation of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its scope.' Present day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a section on existence or non- existence of which power can be exercised. But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement. 'In a contract every person must look for himself and ensure that he acquires the information necessary to avoid bad bargain.' In public law the duty is not to deceive."

(See Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. [(1992) 1 SCC 534] , SCC p. 554, para 20.)

3. Lambadi Pedda Bhadru v. Mohd. Ali Hussain3 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recited that:

47.Whether the revisional authority can review its own orders or reopen the proceedings, and if so when and on what grounds?

2003 SCC Online AP 621 31

49. It is very well settled that once the statutory authority or the Tribunal of a limited jurisdiction has announced its decision, it has, as a general rule, no power to reconsider it or to reopen the case. This applies equally where one of the parties later discovers fresh evidence, which might well alter the decision. But there is an exceptional power to reopen the case where the Tribunal's or authority's decision is the result of fraud played by any of the parties for which purpose the plea of fraud must be specifically stated and proved. The Tribunals of limited jurisdiction or quasi-judicial authorities discharging the functions under the provisions of an enactment exercise only such power as is vested in them under the provisions of the Act under which they discharge their statutory powers. It is a different matter that even the Tribunals and authorities of a limited jurisdiction may have the incidental power to correct the arithmetical and clerical errors which do not amount to reopening or reviewing the proceedings.

73. It is further observed by the Supreme Court that the authorities, be they constitutional, statutory or administrative, (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fraud as fraud and justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). It has been repeatedly said that fraud and deceit defend or excuse no man {Fraus et dolusneminipatrocinaridebent).

34. In response to the contention that on the very basis of earlier notice which was withdrawn the second show cause notice cannot be issued, learned Advocate General has submitted that former show cause notice dated 05-10-2013 was withdrawn because the representation of Sri Y.Nageswara Rao was also placed as reference in that notice. And the present show cause notice was issued on the liberty given to the 1st Respondent by this Hon'ble Court in 5419/2011. It is contended that the government have every right to review the orders obtained fraudulently on misrepresentation and suppression of facts and also this Hon'ble Court has given freedom to 1st respondent to take appropriate action strictly in 32 accordance with the law if it is found that the impugned G.O. was passed on account of any fraud or misrepresentation.

35. To substantiate his contention he has relied on the G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.2008, which reads as follows:

"...re-issue the scheme for allotment of excess lands to the third parties in occupation/land owners and accordingly, issue the following guidelines for allotment of excess lands which were vested with Government and possession of which has been taken over by the Government under the provisions of principal Act 1976 to the land owners/declarants/third parties in occupation; subject to the following conditions:

(a) The allotment shall be considered where the excess land already vested with the Government U/s 10(3) and possession of which has been taken over by the Government;

(b) These orders shall not apply to the cases where allotment of land has already been made by the Government prior to these orders and decided to be retained by the Government for public purpose.

(c ) The allotment shall be subject to withdrawal of all litigations filed either by the occupant of excess land, or the excess land holder, or any other interested person and pending, other than those covered under the Repeal Act relating to the excess land as on the date of this G.O.

(d) The allotment shall be subject to payment of amount to Government at the rates indicated separately for each agglomeration in Schedule-I to this order.

(e) Allotment under these orders shall be confined to:

(i) Excess land in the occupation of third parties, (other than the excess land holder or his successors) where such occupation is evidenced by a registered document of purchase from the excess land holder or person claiming through him/her regardless of the fact of such land being covered by a structure or not.

(ii) Excess land in the occupation of third parties, (other than the excess land holder or his successors) on which there is already a structure, though the occupation is not supported by any registered document of purchase. "Structure" for the purpose of this G.O. shall include any construction which is constructed with walls and covered with a roof of RCC/ Titles/A.C.Sheets/Zinc Sheets or tubular structure but does not include a hut or a shed without walls. In Guntur, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam agglomerations structures with walls and covered with roof of palmyhra leaves traditionally may be considered as structure.

(iii) Excess land in the occupation of land owner / declarant / his or her successor with or without structure where such occupation is evidenced by the latest orders u/s 8(4) of the repealed Act.

(f) In cases covered by clause (e) (i) above, the year of registered document based on which the occupant/applicant came into occupation shall be considered for determining the period of occupation and 3% depreciation will be allowed for each year of occupation subject to a maximum of 25 years i.e. 75% of compensation as per the rates indicated in Schedule-I to this order;

(g) In cases covered by clause (e) (ii) above, the year of coming into occupation shall be the earliest of the years with reference to the dates of any or all of the following primary documents (from Sl.No.1 to 3) pertaining to the structure existing on the excess land and for determining the period of occupation and then to calculate the amount payable with reference to the rates indicated in schedule-I to this order.

3% depreciation shall be allowed for this category of occupations also for each year of occupation subject to a maximum of 25 years i.e., 75% of compensation as per the rates indicated in Schedule-I to this order. As per the above conditions in application No's: 1 to 3 there is a finding with regard to possession but applications 4 to 9 there is no finding of possession as per report of special officer ULC dated 18.05.2009. Hence, they are not eligible as per G.O.Ms.No.747.

36. The 3rd report of Spl. Officer dated 12.8.2013 and in the report of the district level screening committee wherein they have expressed opinion that the subject land should be retained by the Government duly cancelling the regularization G.O.Ms.No.926 since the subject land is a prime one and would be useful for construction of office complexes etc. Out of 6 reports only 2 reports say that vendors of the petitioners are in possession. It is contended that the possession of land was taken as per section 10(6) of the ULC Act, following the due process by conducting panchanama. It is contended that 5 allottees have not paid the total requisite amount calculated as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.747, they paid only after passing the G.O. and there are 3 writ petitions pending at 34 the time of passing G.O.Ms.No.926 and they were not brought into the notice of the Government by the then Special Officer & Competent Authority. Existence of these two conditions will make the petitioners disable to obtain the G.O. 926.

37. Reply to the contentions raised by the learned Advocate General, learned senior counsel Sri O.Manohar Reddy, has submitted that as directed by this Court in W.P.No.5419 of 2011 giving liberty to the State to take appropriate action against respondent no.2 if any of these reports are communicated later and further the Court has not upheld the validity of G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms.No.926 Revenue Department dated 31.8.2009 and giving further liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law in the event if it is found that the impugned G.O. is given on account of any fraud. But the present action of the respondent or its impugned G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 20.3.2020 has no mention about fraud played by the vendors of the petitioners while obtaining G.O.Ms.No.926. Even in the report which was relied by the Government i.e. report from Special Chief Secretary, Chief Commissioner of Land Acquisition except stating that the elders of 8(4) orders i.e. Josyula family were not in peaceful possession over the land this itself varies to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.747. Except that there are no other grounds for cancellation of the G.O.Ms.No.926 dated 31.8.2009. This Court has given liberty to the respondents only on the ground that if it is found that any misrepresentation or fraud then only they are entitled to take action to interdict the G.O. But in the 35 instant case except stating that they are not in possession of the property hence regularisation granted in favour of vendees of the petitioner are recalled, is contrary to the orders of this Court.

38. Further learned senior counsel has submitted that from the beginning, the contention of the petitioner is that he made an application pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.2008 under rights to declarants. The applicants or the persons those who file declaration under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, even according to G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.2008, the Government has considered the request made by the persons who made application as declarants and decided to re-issue the scheme for allotment of excess land. According to the said G.O. both the third parties who are in occupation as well as land owners are entitled to make an application. Further submitted that the allotment of excess land which was vested with the Government and possession of which has been taken over by the Government under provisions of Principles Act 1976 to the land owners/declarants/third parties in occupation. That itself clearly shows that the land owners/declarants as well as third parties in occupation are entitled to make an application. Hence the contention of the learned Advocate General is not in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.747. Here the applications were made by the vendors of the petitioner as declarants. So here the parties in occupation applies only to third parties. Hence whether declarants are in occupation or possession is not at all relevant. 36 Even according to the condition no.1 of the said G.O the allotment shall be considered whether the excess land already vests with the Government and possession has already been taken further by the Government. Further the allotment shall be subject to withdrawal of all litigations filed either by the occupants of excess land or excess land owners or any other interested persons.

39. As indicated in the G.O.Ms.No.747, there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner or the vendors of the petitioner. To support his contention learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the applications made by the vendors of the petitioner. It clearly discloses that the applications are made as declarants under Section 8(4) of the Act. Further he has contended that the petitioner has not filed any writ petition. Even the vendors of the petitioner have also withdrawn the writ petition immediately after passing G.O.Ms.No.926 dated 31.8.2009 as per the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.747. Hence there is no misrepresentation or fraud played either by the petitioner or vendors of the petitioner.

40. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the impugned order does not reflect the fraud played by the parties while obtaining G.O.Ms.No.926 dated 31.8.2009. On the earlier occasion, this court has given liberty only on the ground of fraud but in the instant case, there are no averments with regard to the fraud or no allegations or fraud played either by the petitioner or by the vendors of the petitioner while getting the 37 benefit under G.O.Ms.No.926. The entire report of special chief secretary, CCLA dated 06.9.2013 is with regard to the physical possession over the land except that no other allegations in the impugned orders. Hence the impugned orders G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 23.4.20020 is not only contrary to the directions of this Court in earlier W.P.No.5419 of 2011 and also contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.747.

41. Learned senior counsel further submitted that however there is a clear liberty given to take action against the 2nd respondent therein, but on verification it reveals that no action has been initiated against the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.5419 of 2011 and without initiating any action against the concerned officer, after retirement of the said officer, now the respondents have initiated the present proceedings.

42. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and also on perusal of the entire record, this court is of the opinion that the impugned action/orders of the 1st respondent is quite contrary to the orders issued by this Court in W.P.No.5419 of 2011.

43. Further on perusal of G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.2008, the very issuance of the G.O/policy by the Government is for allotment of excess lands which were vested with the Government and possession of which has been taken over by the Government. Hence the principle while issuing the policy is to consider the applications made by the persons/declarants where the possession has been handed over to the Government as per 38 Section 10(3) and those who are not in possession of the property. Clause

(a) also clarifies the issue that the allotment shall be considered where the excess land already vests with the Government under Section 10(3) and possession which has been taken over by the Government. As per the said clause, the contention of the learned Advocate General that basing on the report of the Special Secretary to CCLA that some of the applicants are not in possession of the land is not withstanding. As contended by the learned senior counsel, the applications filed by the vendors of the petitioner as declarants hence the question of possession of the land by the vendors of the petitioner would not arise. Hence there is no fraud.

44. On perusal of the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.2008 the following persons are entitled to make an application i.e. land owners/declarants/third parties in occupation. That means the purchasers of the land if any third party purchases the land, declarants means who file declarations under Section 8(4) of the Act 1976 and third parties who are in occupation that means if the parties not belong to first and second category those who are in occupation of the property is also entitled to make an application. Hence as per the above said clause, it is clear that the declarants need not be in possession of the property.

45. Further the contention of the learned Advocate General with regard to misrepresentation of fact is also not in conformity with the conditions where the condition stipulates that if any allotment shall be subject to 39 withdrawal of all litigations filed either by the occupant of excess land, or the excess land holder. According to the facts furnished by the petitioner, that the petitioner had not filed any writ petitions or litigations. But the writ petition filed by the vendors of the petitioner has been withdrawn immediately after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.926. Hence the question of misrepresentation by the petitioner or vendors of the petitioner would not arise in the instant case.

46. It is also not out of place to mention that after disposal of the writ petition immediately the respondents have initiated proceedings/notices to cancel the G.O.Ms.No.926. But after filing the contempt case, the said notices have been withdrawn. Hence once the action is initiated and withdrawn by the State and now without indicating the fraud, again they are estopped to initiate action after a lapse of seven (7) years. On that ground also the impugned G.O. has to go.

47. As contended by the learned Advocate General, this Court is not inclined to go into the aspect of power of review or revision of the orders on the ground of fraud because in the instant case impugned orders are not issued on the ground of fraud.

48. Considering the observations made in the earlier writ petition and also the reasons mentioned in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 23.4.2020, the same is not sustainable as per law and also as per the 40 orders of this Court in earlier writ petition. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.115 Revenue (Lands.IV) Department dated 23.4.2020 is hereby set aside.

49. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 22.12.2022 RD 41 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.8280 of 2020 Dated 22.12.2022 RD

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati