Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The writ petition is filed assailing the orders of the Government in Memo No.56887/UCII(1)/97-11, dated 1-5-1999 and for consequential directions to the respondents to release the lay out and building permission.

2. The petitioner is a co-operative house building society registered under the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act on 25-6-1981 and represented by its President. It is the case of the petitioner that it entered into an agreement of sale dated 28-8-1981 with Mrs. N. Paul and another who were declared as surplus holders of urban land in respect of an extent of 9,291 sq.mts. In pursuance of the guidelines issued in G.O. Ms. No.136, dated 28-1-1981 it made an application to the Government for exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act (for brief 'the ULC Act'). The excess landholders also filed an application for exemption. When the matter was under consideration, the Government issued another G.O. Ms. No.964, dated 27-6-1983 superseding the G.O. Ms. No. 136. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was considered. The Government passed orders exempting the land from the provisions of the Chapter-Ill of the ULC Act through its Memo dated 25-7-1984 and directed allotment of house sites through HUDA to the genuine members of the society to enable them to construct the houses and that the amount if any paid to the landlord will be set of against the compensation payable by the Government to the landlord.

4. The Government filed a detailed counter narrating the facts of the case and stated that the decision was taken by the Government is quite legal and valid and the same is in accordance with law and hence the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order rejecting the application of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the ULC Act. The reasons assigned by the Government are wholly illegal and untenable. The action of the Government is wholly mala fide. He submits that the application was made as early as in 1981 and it is only in 1999, it was finally rejected. Even the said rejection is wholly illegal and contrary to law. The learned Counsel submits that the Government issued guidelines in G.O. Ms. No.136, dated 20-1-1981 for exemption the surplus landholders in case they proposed to transfer the excess vacant land to the registered co-operative societies or group of housing societies. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner society fulfils all the conditions laid down in the said G.O. and in fact the Government itself recognised the society as genuine society in its proceedings dated 25-7-1984 when the matter was considered with reference to G.O. Ms. No.964, dated 27-3-1983. Therefore, rejecting the case of the petitioner for exemption is highly arbitrary and it is a case of non-application of mind. Secondly also he submits that the Urban Land Ceiling Act has been repealed by the Central Government and therefore the provisions of the ULC Act are not applicable and hence the Government has no power to reject the case under the purported exercise of powers under ULC Act. The learned Counsel further submits that the orders or notification issued under Section 20 of the Act have the force of law and therefore, the Government is bound to implement the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.136 and if the society is found to fulfil the conditions laid down in the said G.O., the Government is bound to grant permission and it has no power to reject the case. Learned Counsel further submits that in view of the repeal of ULC Act, the Government have no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

6. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand submits that it is always open for the Government to reject the case in view of the public requirement of the said surplus land. Therefore, having exercised the power it would not be open for the petitioner to challenge the same. He also stated that the repeal of ULC Act has no application to A.P. State.

7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders issued by the Government dated 1-9-1995 are valid?

8. However, before delving into the merits of the matter, it is to be made clear that the Parliament repealed the ULC Act by the repealing enactment called Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repealed Act, 1999. This Act came into force in the State of Haryana, Punjab and Union Territories and it shall apply to other States which adopts the repealing Act by resolution passed in that behalf as required under clause (2) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the State of Andhra Pradesh has not yet adopted the repealing Act. Therefore, it has to be necessarily held that the repealing Act has no application to the State of Andhra Pradesh. Hence this contention stands rejected.

28. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that the land is also required for public purpose as other departments, such as Atomic Energy Department, Power Grid Corporation of India, Khadi Industries Commission, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams etc., have made requisitions for allotment of land for the purpose of establishing offices. Therefore, it has to be seen what reasons prompted the Government to reject the case of the petitioner.

29. Admittedly, in the instant case, the application was made by the society as early as in 1981 and for one reason or other reason, the matter was not given finality. Now the ground of rejection is that in view of the public requirement of the said land, the request for exemption was rejected. The files did not in any manner reveal that the requests have been made by other departments for allotment of land and on that basis the request of the petitioner has to be negatived. However, from the separate files produced by the Government Pleader, it is seen that some departments made requests for allotment of land in November, 1998 and thereafter. At that relevant time, when the application was made in 1981, there was no such request at all from any Governmental agencies. While rejecting the application also the authorities did not consider that since there was a request from the other department the requests of the society for exemption from the provisions of the ULC Act was rejected. Note file simply reveals that the Government has taken a decision to reject the application. But, what prompted the Government to reject the application of the petitioner, the reasons are not forthcoming either in the order or in the files which are placed before this Court. Though it is stated by the Government that the decision was taken, since the land vested in the Government. Yet, as can be seen from the letters issued by the Municipality that the charges were collected for approving the tentative lay out and the Collector also granted permission to construct a compound wall to safeguard the property. But, however, subject to exemption by the Government under Section 20. The dispute is not with regard to exemption before or after vesting or after taking possession. But, the real issue is whether the Government has acted fairly by exhibiting transparency. As can be seen from the note file of the Government that, as a policy, the Government was not agreeing for request of exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act and that the case of the petitioner was rejected twice on earlier occasions and therefore on these two grounds the matter was rejected. It may be noted that the Government itself carved out a policy for granting exemption in respect ofthe co-operative Housing Societies proposing to be purchased surplus land and their policy contained in G.O. Ms. No.136 has neither been rescinded nor modified. There is no other policy which has been spelt out in any notifications issued by the Government. In such a case, it would be most inappropriate to reject the case of the petitioner on the ground that as a policy, the Government is not agreeing for the request for exemption. Having issued notification in pursuance of the Government policy, it would not be reasonable on the part of the Government to reject the request for exemption as a matter of policy without there being any such policy. The guidelines were issued in G.O. Ms. No.136 to exercise the power for proper implementation of the provision. They are binding on the Government. They cannot violate the same on an undisclosed policy. Therefore, the ground that as a policy such application as rejected is not sustainable in law and it is held accordingly.