Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Padmanga Butchamari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 December, 2025
Author: B Krishna Mohan
Bench: B Krishna Mohan
APHC010210082020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3233]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
W.P.No.13820 of 2020 and W.P.No.13447 of 2020
WRIT PETITION NO: 13820/2020
Between:
1. S PADMANGA BUTCHAMARI, S. PADMANGABUTCHAMANI W/O.
S.VENKATESWARARAO AGED ABOUT 79YRS D.NO.32-15-111,
SRI TRINETRAAPARTMENTS, DASARILINGAIAH STREET,
MOGALRAJAPURAM VIJAYAWADA- 520010
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY(REVENUE) SECRETARIAT,AMARAVATI.ANDHRA
PRADESH
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM COLLECTORATE
VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL,
REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR18, GAJUWAKA,VISAKHAPATNAM
5. SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND
CEILING VISAKHAPATNAM, COLLECTOR'S
OFFICE,VISAKHAPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 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 toto issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Intimation latter dated 10.12.2018 issued by the Respondent No.4 thereby refusing to register the Document P.No.294 of 2018 as Registration No.28 of 2018 and Document P.No.296 of 2018 asRegistration No.29 of 2018 presented for registration by the petitioner herein in respect of her property admeasuring 360 Sq.yards, situated in Plot No.2 and 350 Sq.yards, situated in Plot No.7, covered in Sy.No.101/1,101/2,101/3,101/4 and 101/5 of Yendada village of Yendada Gram Panchayat, Vishakhapatnam Rural and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on the ground that it is notified under section 22A(1)(d) of the Registration Act,1908, including the ULC proceedings of the Respondent No.5 in C.C.No.4324/76 and 4323/76 which resulted in the issuance of the impugned intimation by the Respondent No. 4 as arbitrary, illegal, against principles of natural justice and violative of Art.300A of Constitution of India and accordingly set aside the sameand pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 Respondent No.4 to register the Document P.No.294 of 2018 as Registration No.28 of 2018 and Document P.No.296 of 2018 as Registration No.29 of 2018 presented for registration of the Gift deeds by the petitioner herein in respect of her property admeasuring 360 Sq.yards, situated in Plot No.2 and 350 Sq.yards, situated in Plot No.7, covered in Sy.No.101/1,101/2,101/3,101/4,&101/5 of Yendada village of Yendada Gram Panchayat, Vishakhapatnam Rural &Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 pleased to receive the above mentioned documents by way of this additional affidavit as they have been made available after filing of the present writ petition and the same are necessary to adjudicate the matter and the same may be permitted to brought on record on the file of W.P No 13820 of 2020 as additional affidavit and to pass 3 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to grant a stay of the ULC proceedings in respect of her property Plot No. 2 admeasuring 360 sq.yards and Plot No. 7 admeasuring 350 sq.yards, covered in Sy.No.101/1,101/2,101/3,101/4,8G101/5 of Yendada village of Yendada Gram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District including any illegal allotment of the same to third parties in view of the above pressing circumstances to prevent the petitioner herein from suffering grave hardship, financial loss and injustice and to pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 pleased to amend the prayer in para 13 by inserting the following:
a. "to set aside the list under the section 22-A(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 to the extent of subject properties' and to pass such other order 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 Pleased to take on record the document and consequently allow the writ petition IA NO: 2 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 pleased to amend the prayer in para 13 by replacing the word "including' after the sentence it is notified under section 22A(1)(d) of the Registration Act 1908" to the word "quashing'. "and to quash ULC proceedings of the Respondent No.5 in C.C.No.4324/76 and 4323/76"
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):4
HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 13447/2020 Between:
1. S.V. RAJA SHEKHAR, S/O. S.VENKATESWARARAO, D.NO.43/2, FLAT NO.101, HALLMARK HOUSE, ROAD NO.6, FILMNAGAR,HYDERABAD. TELANGANA STATE - 500033.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(REVENUE) REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(REVENUE), SECRETARIAT ,AMARAVATIANDHRA PRADESH
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, , VISAKHAPATNAM COLLECTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM 503009
3. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. JOINT SUB REGISTRAR18, GAJUWAKAVISAKHAPATNAM
5. THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILING VISAKHAPATNAM, COLLECTORS OFFICEVISAKHAPATNAM ...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 topleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Intimation latter dated 10.12.2018 issued by the Respondent No.4 thereby refusing to register the Document P.No.294 of 2018 as Registration No.24 of 2018 presented for registration by the petitioner herein in respect of his property admeasuring 700 Sq. yards situated in Plot No.8 covered in 5 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 Sy.No.101/1,101/2,101/3,101/4 and101/5 of Yendada village of Yendada Gram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on the ground that it is notified under section 22 A(1)(d) of the Registration Act,1908, including the ULC proceedings of the Respondent No.5 in C.C.No.4324/76 and 4323/76 which resulted in the issuance of the impugned intimation by the Respondent No.4 as arbitrary, illegal, against principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 300 A of Constitution of India and accordingly set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to register the Document P.No.294 of 2018 as Registration No.24 of 2018, presented for registration of the Gift deeds by petitioner herein in respect of his property admeasuring 700sq. yards situated in Plot No.8 covered in Sy.No.101/1,101/2,101/3,101/4 &101/5 of Yendada village of Yendada Gram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 pleased to receive the above mentioned documents by way of this additional affidavit as they have been made available after filing of the present writ petition and the same are necessary to adjudicate the matter and the same may be permitted to brought on record on the file cf No 13447 of 2020 as additional affidavit and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 amend the prayer in para 13 by inserting the followings to set aside the list under the section 22 A(1)(d) of the registration act, 1908 to the extent of subject properties and to pass 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 6 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 pleased pleased to amend the prayer in para 13 by replacing the word "including' after the sentence "it is notified under section 22A(1)(d) of the Registration Act 1908" to the word "quashing", "and to quash ULC proceedings of the Respondent No.5 in C.C.No.4324/ 76 and 4323/ 76"
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 7 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 The Court made the following Common Order:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition was filed questioning the intimation letter dated 10.12.2018 of the 4th respondent refusing to register the Document P.No.295 of 2018 as Registration No.28 of 2018 and Document P.No.296 of 2018 as Registration No.29 of 2018 presented for registration by the petitioner in respect of her property to an extent of 360 Sq. yards situated in Plot No.2 and 350 Sq. yards situated in Plot No.7 covered by Sy. Nos.101/1, 101/2, 101/3, 101/4 & 101/5 of Yendada Village of Yendada Gram Panchayat, Vishakhapatnam Rural and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on the ground that it is notified under section 22A(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 including the ULC proceedings of the Respondent No.5 in C.C. Nos.4324/76 and 4323/76 which resulted in the issuance of the impugned intimation by the Respondent No.4.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent issued the impugned intimations dated 10.12.2018 when two gift deeds were presented by the petitioner for registrations on 13.03.2018 by keeping them pending as P.No.295/2018 & P.No.296/2018 and refused to register them as No.28/2018 and 29/2018, dated 10.12.2018 with a further request to prefer an appeal before the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam under section 72(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 within 30 days from the date of the order. The 8 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 said impugned intimations dated 10.12.2018 were issued on the ground that the said survey number is notified as prohibited under section 22A(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 treating it as ULC land.
4. He also refers to the proceedings of the 5th respondent in C.C.No.7229/1983 dated 28.02.1983 addressed to the declarants by names Nammi Chandraiah, Nammi Appanna and Duvvi Ramulu. According to it, the declarants filed a statement in Form-I u/s.6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and the enquiry reveals that the declarant holds the properties mentioned in the statement appended and it was held that the declarant's lands are agricultural lands situated within the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits and they are not attracted by the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 as long as they are used for agricultural purposes only. The appendix of the said proceedings contains the survey Nos.101/1, 101/2, 101/3, 101/4 & 101/5 with extents Ac.0.95 cents, Ac.0.22 cents, Ac.0.34 cents, Ac.0.20 cents and Ac.0.50 cents respectively with the remarks column as detailed in the said proceedings.
5. He also refers to the sale deed executed by Nammi Chandraiah, Nammi Gangaiah, Nammi Apparao, Nammi Ramulu, Nammi Ramu, Nammi Rambabu, Duvvi Ramulu, Nammi Kunchaiah, Nammi Pentaiah, Nammi Rambabu and Nammi Rama Krishna in favour of Sree Rama Co-operative Building Society Ltd. represented by its Secretary Sri K.S.A.N.Raju dated 17.03.1983 with respect to the scheduled property therein to an extent of 9 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 Ac.1.69 cents out of Ac.2.21 cents in Sy.Nos.101/1, 101/2, 101/3, 101/4 & 101/5 which further contains that the ULC permission No.CC7229/83, dated 28.02.1983 was filed therein and it is not an assigned land and the value of the property is Rs.22,000/-.
6. The 5th respondent addressed a letter to the 4th respondent dated 31.03.1983 informing that Sree Rama Co-operative Building Society Ltd., Visakhapatnam purchased the land with an extent of Ac.1-69 Gts and Ac.3- 69 Gts covered by Sy.Nos.101/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Sy.Nos.109, 110/2 & 110/3 of Yendada Village from the following persons as detailed below:
S. Name of the Village Survey No. Extent Name of the person Document No Ac.Gts. from whom purchased No & Date of Registration
1. Yendada 101/1, 2, 1-69 Nammi Chandraiah and 2953/83 3, 4 & 5 others Dt.17-03-83
2. -Do- 109, 110/2 3-69 Saripalli Apparao etc., 2412/83 & 110/3 Dt.03-03-83 It further contains that the lands hold by the registered Cooperative Societies are exempt from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 as per Section 19(1)(V).
7. While so, Sree Rama Co-operative Building Society Ltd., Visakhapatnam represented by its Secretary K.S.A.N.Raju executed a sale deed No.3602 of 1983, dated 02.04.1983 in favour of Sri Linga Vijatha with respect to the schedule of the property mentioned therein to an extent of 356 Sq. yards in Sy.No.101/1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 at Yendada Village of Yendada Panchayat, Visakhapatnam District. Later, Smt. Linga Vasantha executed 10 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner dated 14.02.2001 for the schedule property mentioned therein to an extent of Ac.360 Sq. yards being Plot No.2 in Sy.No.101/1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 of Yendada Village, Yendada Panchayat, Chinagadale Mandalam, Madhurawada Registration Sub District and Visakhapatnam District with the boundaries mentioned therein.
8. The 5th respondent issued notice under section 8(3) of UL(C&R) Act, 1976 in C.C.No.4323/76 B2 addressed to one of the declarants by name Sri Nammi Ramarao dated 06.06.1980 calling for objections if any through draft statement within 30 days from the date of service of the said draft statement.
But according to the petitioner, the said declarant died on 24.10.1978. Similarly, the 5th respondent issued a letter to one of the declarants by name Sri N.Ganganna in connection with C.C.No.4324/76 B2 serving final statement prepared under section 9 of the said Act dated 19.11.1981. Subsequently, the 5th respondent issued notice U/s.10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 dated 21.06.1983 to one of the declarants by name Sri Nammi Ganganna stating that the schedule land mentioned therein to an extent of 0.1190 Sq. mts. in Sy.No.101/5P of Yendada Village vested absolutely in the Government of Andhra Pradesh free from all encumbrances by virtue of the declaration published u/s.10(3) of the said Act and accordingly directed the declarant therein to deliver the possession of the schedule land thereof to the Firka Revenue Inspector within 30 days from the date of service of the said notice. Then the 5th respondent passed 11 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 orders u/s.10(6) of the said Act in C.C.No.4324/76, dt. Nil.08.1991 against one of the declarants by name Nammi Ganganna with respect to the schedule land mentioned therein to an extent of 0.1190 Sq. mts. in Sy.No.101/5P of Yendada Village pursuant to the notice issued u/s.10(5) of the said Act, dated 03.10.1983. Similarly, the 5th respondent passed orders u/s.10(6) of the said Act in C.C.No.4323/76, dated Nil.08.1991 against one of the declarants by name Nammi Ramarao (died) pursuant to the notice u/s.10(5) of the said Act, dated 03.10.1983 with respect to the schedule land mentioned therein to an extent of 0.1406 Sq. mts. in Sy.No.101/5P of Yendada Village.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the registered sale deed bearing Document No.2953/1983, dated 17.03.1983 executed by Nammi Chandraiah, Nammi Gangaiah, Nammi Appa Rao, Nammi Ramulu, Nammi Ramu, Nammi Rambabu, Duvvi Ramulu, Nammi Kunchaiah, Nammi Pentaiah, Nammi Rambabu, Nammi Rama Krishna in favour of Sree Rama Co-operative Building Society Ltd., represented by its Secretary K.S.A.N.Raju with respect to the schedule property mentioned therein to an extent of Ac.1.69 cents out of Ac.2.21 cents in Sy.No.101/1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 with boundaries mentioned therein. The said document contains that ULC Permission No.CC 7229/1983, dated 28.02.1983 was also filed along with it. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner ultimately contends that no order was passed u/s.8(4) of the said UL(C&R) Act, 1976, possession of the 12 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 petitioner or her vendors was not disturbed and the said ULC Act, 1976 was repealed by the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 which was adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.03.2008. He further contends that either the petitioner or her vendors have not received any notice even under the above said ULC Act, 1976.
10. For his contentions, he also relies upon the decision of State of U.P. v. Hari Ram1 in Civil Appeal No.2326 of 2013 and Batch of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 11.03.2013, wherein it was held at Para No.39 as under:
39. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act.
The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act.
11. He also relies upon the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.Appa Rao and others v. Competent Authority, Defence Estates Officer & Competent Authority (ULC), Secunderabad and another2, wherein it was held at Para Nos.21, 22, 23 & 24 as under:
21. Once it has emerged that all the orders, including those, under Section 9 and different sub-sections of Section 10 were passed only after death of Kuppu Swamy, i.e., the delarant, they become void ab initio, and they do not give rise to any legal consequences. 1
2013 AIR SC 1793 2 (2009) 5 ALD 800 13 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 22 Coming to the second aspect, the actual determination of the holdings of a declarant under the Act takes place in an order to be passed under sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act. It is supposed to be a reasoned order, dealing with the contentions of the declarant and reflecting the opinion of the competent authority. What is to be prepared under Section 9 is, only a final statement. This, in turn, is to be prepared on the basis of an order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, and by making necessary alterations in draft statement. It does not contain any reasons. In WP No. 6404 of 1980, through its order dated 29.8.1981, this Court held that failure to pass order under Section 8(4), even where no objections were received, in response to a draft statement, under Section 8(1), is illegal, and the consequential statement, prepared under Section 9 of the Act, cannot be sustained in law. In the instant case, no order Section 8(4) of the Act was passed, and straightaway, a statement under Section 9 was prepared. Therefore, the failure on the part of the 1st respondent, in this regard, is fatal to the proceedings.
23. The third contention is based upon the repeal of the Act. The Parliament repealed the Act in the year 1999. Section 7 of the repeal Act provided that all the proceedings initiated under the Act would abate, except where the land vested in the Government, and possession thereof has been taken. The repeal Act was not immediately adopted by the A.P. State Legislature. It was only in the recent past, that the A.P. State Legislature has passed a resolution, adopting the repealing Act.
24. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the repeal Act does not have any impact on the land in question, since possession of the land has already been taken. Petitioners on the other hand, dispute the very factum of taking possession. Even assuming that the possession of the land was taken, in the preceding paragraphs, it has been held that the entire proceedings are void ab initio and without any legal consequences; firstly because they were issued against a dead person, and secondly, because no order was passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. The result is that, the possession, even if taken; would be on the strength of illegal and void orders, and it cannot be recognized in law. Had the Act been in force, it would have been possible for the respondents, to resume the proceedings, duly bringing the legal representatives of late Kuppu Swamy on record. That possibility does not exist, in view of the repeal of the Act.
12. He also points out from the above said facts and circumstances that the notice u/s.8(3) and the order u/s.10(6) of the ULC Act, 1976 were issued 14 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 against a dead person by name N.Ramarao/one of the declarants and as such whole proceedings are vitiated under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and they shall be deemed to be null and void. No fresh declarations were also called for on the change of character of the subject land pursuant to the subsequent transactions.
13. The second writ petition i.e. W.P.No.13447 of 2020 was filed questioning the intimation letter dated 10.12.2018 of the 4th respondent refusing to register the Document P.No.294 of 2018 as Registration No.24 of 2018 presented for registration by the petitioner in respect of his property admeasuring 700 Sq. yards situated in Plot No.8 covered in Sy. Nos.101/1, 101/2, 101/3, 101/4 & 101/5 of Yendada Village of Yendada Gram Panchayat, Vishakhapatnam Rural and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on the ground that it is notified under section 22A(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 including the ULC proceedings of the Respondent No.5 in C.C. Nos.4324/76 and 4323/76 which resulted in the issuance of the impugned intimation by the Respondent No.4.
14. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents refers to the prayers in the above said two writ petitions and the proceedings of the 5th respondent in C.C.No.7229/1983 dated 28.02.1983 addressed to the declarants mentioned therein as stated supra. The appendix of the said proceedings shows only Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.101/5 but the total extent is Ac.3.45 cents. Referring to the field map 15 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 No.101 issued under RTI Act, 2005 by the office of the Collector, Visakhapatnam, he submits that petitioners/vendors' land falls in Sy.No.101/5A, 5B and hence the petitioners land only falls under Sy.No.101/5A & 5B. Out of Ac.3.45 cents in Sy.No.101/5, the petitioners/vendors claim was only Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.101/5. The petitioners/vendors vendor i.e., the above said society purchased Ac.1.69 cents out of Ac.2.29 cents in Sy.No.101/1 to 5 and Sy.No.101/5C and 5D were taken possession by the State on 17.01.1992 and it is in possession thereof. Hence, the petitioners cannot seek setting aside of the proceedings covered under C.C.No.4323/76 and C.C.No.4324/76 in Sy.No.101/5C & 5D.
15. Since both the prayers are one and the same, the facts and circumstances are similar in nature except the petitioners and the subject land extents and as the learned counsels on both the sides made common submissions, they are disposed of by a common order as under.
16. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, upon consideration of the rival submissions made and the material available on record, it is to be seen that the prayers in the above said writ petitions are to deliver the subject properties from the prohibited list under section 22A(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, for which, the 2nd respondent is the appropriate authority to consider the same and admittedly, the petitioners have not approached the said authority except by questioning the impugned intimation letters of the 4th respondent dated 10.12.2018 in these writ 16 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 petitions on the ground that the subject lands cannot be treated as ULC land. As stated supra, it is the case of the petitioners that the possession of the petitioners or their vendors was not disturbed and no notices were issued to them under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976. Since the subject lands were purchased by the above said society, the ULC Act, 1976 is not applicable as the character of the land was already changed. Even prior to it, when the ULC proceedings were initiated against the above said declarants, it was proceeded against the dead person as seen above and as such the whole proceedings were vitiated and by virtue of ULC Repeal Act, 1999 adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.03.2008 the subject land no longer can be treated as ULC land. Even in the light of the above said decisions, extension of provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 is not sustainable under law with respect to the subject lands.
17. But all these facts and circumstances and the legal position shall be appreciated by the primary authority concerned at the first instance for deletion of any subject property from the prohibited list. In the present cases, the 2nd respondent has not yet applied his/her mind for the said facts and circumstances of the petitioners with respect to the subject lands.
18. Hence, it is not desirable for this court at this stage to dwelve upon the same by going into the merits of the case for consideration of the case of the petitioners on the submissions made by their learned counsel. Therefore, the petitioners are permitted to make applications to the 2nd respondent for 17 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.13820 of 2020 & 13447 of 2020 deletion of the subject properties from the prohibited list u/s.22A(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 by enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the said applications of the petitioners if any, strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners, upon verification of the records and the subject lands, appropriate decision(s) shall be taken on their own merit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months thereafter. The 2nd respondent shall proceed with the above said enquiries without reference to the impugned intimations of the 4th respondent dated 10.12.2018 and subject to the final decision(s) taken by the 2nd respondent as directed above, the petitioners can approach the 4th respondent again for fresh consideration of registrations of the documents submitted in respect of the subject lands.
19. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Interim orders, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 20.12.2025 PND