Telangana High Court
Mr. Muzafeerunnisa Begum vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 March, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
DATE: 24.03.2026
WRIT PETITION No.12787 OF 2012
Between:
Mrs. Muzafeerunnisa Begum and 3 others.
...Petitioners
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others.
...Respondents
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records relating to the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, under Sections 8(4), dated 15.11.1994, 10(3) dated 03.12.1997, 10(5) dated 19.05.1998 and 10(6) dated 23.04.1999 passed by the 2nd Respondent, in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.3-04 guntas in Sy.No.134 held by the 1st Petitioner, Acs.4-35 guntas in Sy.No.134 held by the 2nd Petitioner and Acs.2-14 guntas in Sy.No.133 held by the 3rd Petitioner, situated at Kismatpur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the 2 provisions of the Act and consequently set aside the said proceedings, and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the respective lands and to direct Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to re-incorporate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Heard Mr. M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Assignment, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1 The 1st petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Acs.3-04 guntas in Survey No.134 of Kismatpur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.6297 of 1994, dated 30.03.1994, from M/s.
Bio Vaccines Private Limited, Hyderabad, and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment thereof. The 2nd petitioner purchased Acs.4-35 guntas in Survey No.134 under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.6296 of 1994, dated 30.03.1994, from the same vendor. The 3rd petitioner purchased Acs.2-14 guntas in Survey No.133 under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.2715 of 1994, dated 28.03.1994, from the original owners and M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited, Hyderabad, and 3 all the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands.
3.2 Originally, the lands in Survey Nos.133 and 134 were owned by late Mirza Gazanfar Baig, s/o Ameer Baig, who sold the same to M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.4799 of 1981, dated 30.05.1981, after obtaining Certificate No.ULC D.Dis.No.C5/1328/80, dated 05.05.1981, from the 2nd respondent, certifying that the lands are agricultural and not covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ("ULC Act"). After the purchase, the name of M/s Bio Vaccines Private Limited, Hyderabad, was mutated in the revenue records, and it continued as the owner till 1994. The pahanis consistently depict the lands as agricultural, and no master plan existed for Kismatpur Village in 1976. The lands are also situated in the peripheral area of Hyderabad agglomeration and are entitled to exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.217 dated 18.04.2000.
3.3 Despite the above, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under the ULC Act in the name of late Mirza Gazanfar Baig, who had passed away on 11.06.1979. Notice under Section 8(3) was issued in Proceedings No.D1/8350/76 dated 01.07.1994. Subsequently, orders under Section 8(4) dated 15.11.1994 were passed determining surplus land, followed by Notification under Section 10(3) dated 03.02.1997, 4 notice under Section 10(5) dated 19.05.1998, and notice under Section 10(6) dated 23.04.1999, all in the name of a deceased person. Earlier, notice under Section 6(2) dated 28.07.1992 was issued to M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited, but no declaration was obtained from them. The proceedings were continued illegally, claiming paper possession without actual dispossession, while the petitioners remained in lawful possession.
3.4 The petitioners submit that no notices under Section 10(5) or Rule 5(2) were served on them or their predecessor-in-title, and the entire proceedings are illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to law. The lands are agricultural and not vacant lands within the meaning of the ULC Act. The authorities failed to consider the nature of the land, applicable exemptions, and the fact that proceedings were initiated against a dead person, rendering all such actions null and void.
3.5 The petitioners came to know of the impugned proceedings in the first week of April, 2012, when neighboring landholders brought them to notice. Thereafter, they obtained certified copies from the 2nd respondent's office. The 4th respondent authorities visited the lands on 20.04.2012 to locate lands not covered by the status quo order, and though the petitioners were in possession, the officials attempted to dispossess them. Aggrieved by the illegal proceedings, lack of notice, and 5 interference with their lawful possession, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are lawful purchasers and have been in continuous possession of their respective lands as shown below:
(i) 1st Petitioner: Survey No.134, admeasuring Acs.3.04 guntas, purchased under Registered Sale Deed No.6297 of 1994 dated 30.03.1994 from M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited, Hyderabad.
(ii) 2nd Petitioner: Survey No.134, admeasuring Acs.4.35 guntas, purchased under Registered Sale Deed No.6296 of 1994 dated 30.03.1994 from the same vendor.
(iii) 3rd Petitioner: Survey No.133, admeasuring Acs.2.14 guntas, purchased under Registered Sale Deed No.2715 of 1994 dated 28.03.1994 from the original owners and M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner No.2 were brought on record as Petitioner No.4, vide order dated 17.02.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025.
6
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned proceedings No.D/8333 to 8337/76, 8350, 8833, 8832, 8789, 7953/76, dated 23.04.1999, issued by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, under Section 10(5), were directed against a deceased person and pertain to the petitioners' properties in Survey Nos.133 and 134. He further submits that no notice of these proceedings was ever served on the petitioners, in violation of Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, which requires notice to be given to the person actually in possession of the lands.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that original owner, late Mirza Gazanfar Baig, had expired in 1979, and the legal heirs sold the properties to M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited in 1981. The transfer of the properties to the petitioners in 1994 is lawful, and they have been continuous possession and enjoyment thereafter.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Others, in Civil Appeal No.6130 of 2016, and the relevant portions of the said judgment reads as follows:
"22.3 Applying the above settled law to the facts at hand, we find the following facts on the face of the record:
a) The appellants herein were in actual possession of the sub-plots in question at the time of enforcement of the Repealing Act.
b) On 22.11.1990, a notice under Section 10(5) regarding transfer of possession to the State Government was issued to the original 7 landowner but not the appellants herein, who were in possession of the concerned sub-plots. The said notice reads as under:
"Regd. Post A D. No.ULC/6(1)2/773/3912/733/ Section - 10(5) Competent Authority and Additional Collector Office, First Floor, Nanpura, Surat Date : 22-11-90 To, Smt. Maniben wd/o Kuberbhai Nathubhai Resident: Gotalavadi, Katargam, Dist. Surat Pursuant to Section - 9 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, Part "CH" of Form - 3 of the Final Statement made surplus and notice to the land holder under Section - 10(5) regarding entrusting the possession of the land forfeited to the government vide Notification of Section - 10(3).
It is hereby informed to you that by passing an order under Section-8(4) of the above act regarding the land as described in the schedule below, Final Statement under Section - 9 was forwarded on 16-6-89, after that Notification of Section - 10(1) was published vide dated 28-9-89. Now Final Notification of Section - 10(3) has been published on dated 21-8-90 in Government Gazette in Part 4-C in English and Gujarati on Page No.1316 to 1317. According to that notification, a land mentioned in the schedule below has been forfeited to the government from the date of publication as an additional land free from all encumbrances.
So, it is hereby ordered under Section - 10(5) of the above Act that person holding the possession / usage of the land mentioned in the schedule below to entrust the possession of the said land to the officer authorized by the state government i.e. Additional Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Surat within days - 30 (thirty) from the receipt of this notice.
If you may commit any delay or failure in entrusting the possession of the land mentioned in the schedule, possession shall be taken by using required force by taking requisite steps under Section 10 - (6) of the above act. So this notice is for entrusting the possession of the land within time limit of 30 days.
8 SCHEDULE Sr. Name of the Name of Taluka S.No. Declared surplus No. Land Holder Area of the Plot sq. Mt. land No. 1. 2 3 4 5 Maniben Katargam 339 662.18 No.9/A wd/o Choryasi Paiki T.P. No.4 Paiki 9/18 Kuberbhai Nathubhai Sd/- Competent Authority and Additional Collector, Surat Copy forwarded: - Surveyor - Shree I.G. Parekh 2/- For preparing map of the above surplus land in triplicate." 22.4 Therefore, as per the provisions of Sections 10(3) and
10(5) of the ULC Act, the subject land, despite having 'vested' (along with acquisition of title or interests) in the State Government, was not in the possession of the Government. Further, possession was not taken by any of the three possible means, i.e., voluntary transfer by the appellants, issuance of notice under Section 10(5) to the appellants followed by peaceful transfer or forceful acquisition of possession under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act. The possession of the land continues with the appellants herein till date.
22.5 Such a scenario is clearly one where the provision of abatement under Section 4 of the Repealing Act applies. The proviso to Section 4 states that the section would not apply to proceedings under Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the ULC Act relating to land that has already been taken possession of by the State Government. Therefore, the proviso has no applicability to the facts at hand and the benefit of abatement under the section would apply wholesale.
22.8 Similarly, we are unable to agree with the contention of the respondents that the appellants cannot claim a right to receive notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act. The propriety of the sale deed executed in favour of the appellants is immaterial. Section 10(5) mandates the delivery of notice to the person(s) in possession of the concerned lands. On the date of issuance of notice (22.11.1990), the appellants as possessors did not receive the same. It was sent to the erstwhile owner of the subject land. This also implies that the respondents also were aware of the fact 9 that actual possession was not with them and there was a need to issue notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act before taking over actual possession. However, the respondents did not ascertain as to in whose name actual possession stood. Therefore, no notice was issued to the appellants and hence there being no transfer of possession in accordance with Section 10 of the ULC Act, it continues with the appellants both in fact as well as in law. Hence, they are entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Repealing Act as they do not fall within the scope of Section 3 of the said Act which is the savings clause. The omission to issue notice to the appellants violated the mandatory requirement of serving notice under Section 10(5) and meant that the legal process of acquiring possession was still ongoing, leading to abatement of proceedings under Section 4 of the Repealing Act on its enforcement."
9. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2, filed a counter affidavit contending that the legal heirs of late Mirza Gazanfar Baig had filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, declaring their ancestral properties as detailed below:
Sl. Name of the Declarant Father's Name C.C. No.
No.
1 Sri Mirza Abdul Aziz Baig Mirza Gazanfar Baig D/8832/1976
2 Sri Mirza Abdul Saleem Baig Mirza Gazanfar Baig D/8333/1976
3 Sri Mirza Abdul Rasheed Baig Mirza Gazanfar Baig D/8334/1976
4 Sri Mirza Abdul Jaleel Baig Mirza Gazanfar Baig D/8335/1976
5 Sri Mirza Abdul Gafoor Baig Mirza Gazanfar Baig D/8336/1976
6 Sri Mirza Abdul Qadar Baig Mirza Gazanfar Baig D/8337/1976
7 Sri Mirza Jamal Baig Mirza Ameen Baig D/7953/1976
8. Sri Mirza Gajanfer Baig Mirza Ameen Baig D/8850/1976
9. Sri Mirza Abdul Rahman Baig Mirza Gazanfar Baig D/8338/1976
10. Sri Mirza Abdul Rahim Baig Mirza Gazanfar Baig D/8789/1976
10
10. It is contended that, except Mirza Gazanfar Baig and the grandsons of Ameen Ali, who are not entitled to any share in the subject lands, no other persons had validly filed declarations. Consequently, the entire extent of the subject lands was rightly computed in the holding of the declarant, and orders under Section 8(1) of the Act were issued determining surplus vacant land to an extent of Ac.2,38,675.09 Sq. Mtrs., in Survey Nos.113, 114, 133, 137 and 144 of Kismathpur Village.
11. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the lands covered under C.C.Nos.D1/8333, 8334, 8335, 8336, 8337, 8832/76, 8833/76 and 7953/76 do not constitute ancestral properties of Mirza Ameer Baig, and hence the declarants have no claim or entitlement therein. It is contended that the competent authority rightly computed the holdings in the name of Mirza Gazanfar Ali Baig and permitted retention only to the extent of 1,000.00 Sq. Mtrs., each, under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, treating the remaining extent as surplus lands. It is further submitted that the lands fall within the peripheral area of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.733, Revenue, dated 31.10.1988, the declarants are entitled to retain an extent of Ac.5.00 or 20,234.30 Sq. Mtrs. After granting such exemption, the holding of Sri Mirza Abdul Raheem Baig was found to be within the permissible limit and he was treated as a "non-surplus vacant land holder", whereas Mirza Gazanfar Baig, declarant in C.C.No.8350/1976, was provisionally determined as a "surplus vacant land holder" to an extent of 1,34,546.92 Sq. Mtrs.
11
12. It is further contended that, after conducting due enquiry, the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act was issued on 01.07.1994 in the names of Mirza Gazanfar Baig and 9 others, and thereafter final orders under Section 8(4) along with statement under Section 9 were issued on 15.11.1994 and duly served on the said Mirza Gazanfar Baig and other declarants. It is submitted that the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 08.03.1995 and published in A.P. Gazette No.07 dated 30.03.1995; the declaration under Section 10(3) was issued on 23.07.1998 and published in Gazette No.33 dated 10.09.1998; the notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 15.09.1998; and the orders under Section 10(6) were issued on 23.04.1999, all in accordance with law. It is further submitted that a clerical mistake in the survey number, wherein Sy.No.133 was wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.139, was subsequently rectified by issuance of Errata Gazette No.39 dated 12.02.1997.
13. Learned Government Pleader further contends that the petitioners are merely third-party purchasers who acquired the subject lands subsequent to the filing of declarations and during the pendency of the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, and therefore such transactions are null and void. The contention that the proceedings were initiated against a deceased person is denied, as notices were duly served on the legal heirs, who failed to raise any objections at the relevant point of time. It is thus contended that the Writ Petition is devoid of locus standi and merits, and 12 that the impugned proceedings are legal and valid. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition.
14. On careful perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioners are lawful purchasers and have been in continuous, actual possession of the lands in Survey Nos.133 and 134 under valid registered sale deeds. The original owner, late Mirza Gazanfar Baig, had sold the lands to M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited in 1981, having obtained a certificate under the ULC Act declaring the lands as agricultural and not covered under the Act. Following this sale, the lands were mutated in the name of M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited and subsequently transferred to the petitioners in 1994, who have remained in uninterrupted possession thereafter.
15. The impugned proceedings under Sections 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), and 10(6) of the ULC Act were initiated in the name of a deceased owner, without serving any notice to the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title. The mandatory provisions of Section 10(5) require that notice be given to the person actually in possession of the lands, which was not done in the present case. The authorities failed to ascertain the true possessors of the lands before issuing orders, and consequently, the proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction and in violation of law.
16. Relying on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia's case, it is clear that possession 13 continues with the lawful possessors if notices under Section 10(5) are not served. The failure to issue proper notice to the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title renders all proceedings against the deceased owner illegal and unsustainable. The petitioners' possession, being lawful, continues both in fact and in law. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings dated 15.11.1994, 03.12.1997, 19.05.1998, and 23.04.1999, passed by the 2nd respondent in respect of Survey Nos.133 and 134 of Kismatpur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby set aside to the extent of the petitioners. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to re-incorporate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and to ensure peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective lands within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 24.03.2026 HFM