Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The 2nd respondent filed counter contending that the village Madapur forms part of Moosapet Panchayat which is included in the Table at Sl.No.1(1) under Section 2(n) of the Act called Urban Agglomeration area as specified in Col.No.(2) of the table in Schedule-I of the Act. The said village is within the Urban Agglomeration area. As per the entries made in the Pahani even earlier to 1992-93, S.No.79 was already converted as house plots. As per explanation (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Act, the land in question became vacant land and as such hit by the provision of Section 5(3) reference with Section 28(a) of the 1976 Act. The land owner colluded with the petitioners and effected sales dividing the land into bits only with an intention to circumvent the provision of the Act. A notice was sent to the petitioners to file statement under Section 6(1), but they did not comply with the same. There was no master plan in respect of Madapur village as on the appointed date i.e., 28-1-1976 but the land in question is covered by Schedule-I of the Act. Since die nature of the land use has been changed from agriculture to residential use even prior to the date of sale in the year 1995, the provisions of the Act 1976 apply as per explanation (ii) and Section 6(1) of the Act. This was also upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.10103 of 1985. The Government granted conversion subject to the condition of applicability of the Act 1976. This does not mean that the owner of such lands precluded from filing the declaration. The petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition as they are neither the holders nor they are pattadars of the land in question. The petitioners are not the owners of the land as the sale is hit by Section 5(3) of the Act and as such issuing of certificate to the petitioners does not arise. The petitioners and the land owners violated the conditions imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.467 MA and UD (ZI) Department dated 3-9-1996.

7. The learned single Judge considering the provisions of the Acts 1975, 1976 and some of the GOs. issued by the Government time and again with regard to the applicability of the provisions of both the Acts', when the provisions of the Acts will apply to the lands particularly the disputed lands, and also considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions, namely Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U.P., ; Meera Gupta v. State of West Bengal, ; Kamal Kanti Mukherjee v. Competent Authority, and S. Sulakshana Bat v. State of A.P., 1996 (2) ALT 557 (DB), by holding that the attitude of the respondents in not considering the request of the petitioners is incorrect, granted the relief sought by the petitioners. In the impugned order, the learned single Judge observed that urban land means the land which is situated within the limits of urban agglomeration and it shall find a place in the master plan, but not the one used for agricultural purpose. According to the learned single Judge, the land in question is not situated within the urban agglomeration area and not covered by the master plan existing as on 21-8-1976. Also observed that the land in question is not vacant land and as such the provisions of the Act 1976 have no application. He found that the extension of the master plan by way of amendment to a particular area which was not included when the Act came into force, cannot alter the original nature of the land. According to him, the master plan which was amended by 28-6-1996 has no application. Even in the said amendment the lands were shown as conservation zone only. Further the lands were converted into residential zone as per the G.O. Ms.No.467, dated 3-9-1996. According to the learned single Judge, if position of the land is examined in the light of Section 2(o) of the Act 1976, the lands in question are not vacant lands. He also took into consideration the entries made in the Pahanies in respect of the lands in question for the year 1965-66, 1970-71, 1975-76 and 1985-86. Cols.23 and 24 of the said Pahanies show different crops raised in the said lands. The learned single Judge observed that when the petitioners made application before the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, the petitioners were owning only 1000 Sq.metres each which was within the ceiling limit. This was also endorsed by the Competent Authority under the ULC Act. Thus on the date of change of the land from agriculture to the non-agriculture, the petitioners were holding 1000 sq.mtrs, which was within the statutory limit. Even according to the certificate issued by the HUDA and the amended master plan dated 29-6-1985, the land use was changed from conservation zone to residential zone. So also by G.O.Ms.No.467, dated 3-9-1996. The land was not at all included in Col.No.2 of Schedule -1 of the ULC Act on 184-1989 and earlier Notification dated 16-10-1978. Moosapet and Fathenagar Gram Panchayats were reconstituted by excluding Madapur and Guttala Begumpet villages from their jurisdiction. Thus a new Madapur Gram Panchayat with Madapur and Guttala Begumpet villages were constituted which fell outside the purview of urban agglomeration. By memo No. 132831/ULI/88-1, dated 22-12-1988 it was informed that there was no prohibition or restriction from the Urban Land Ceiling point of view for alienation of the land not falling within the purview of the Act. Even the Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps was requested to direct all the registering authorities to register the lands classified for agricultural use in the master plan after satisfying whether the lands to be registered are included in survey number villages-wise. The Government by its memo dated 4-4-1990 informed that as per G.O.Ms.No.733 Revenue (UCII) Department, dated 31-10-1988, excess vacant land up to Ac. 5.00 excluding the area required for roads etc., lying in the peripheral area of urban agglomeration lias been exempted from the 1976 Act. The learned single Judge also referred to Government of India's letter No. 11/ 8 of 1995 UCU, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment (Department of Urban Development), dated 1-8-1996 advising all the State Governments to follow the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum's case in letter and spirit until the same is reviewed by the Supreme Court. The learned single Judge found that both the Government and the HUDA in their endorsements and certificates issued earlier held that the petitioners' lands are agricultural lands and well within the ceiling limit. By the time the land use was changed, the holding of each petitioner was just Ac.00.10 guntas in other words 1000 Sq. metres. According to the learned single Judge the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Atia Mohammadi Begum and Meera Gupta and also in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Rao apply to the case of the petitioners. He found that on facts the law laid down by this Court in Sulakshana Bai's case and for the reasons given therein, has no application to the case on hand. One more reason for the learned single Judge to hold that the principles laid down in Sulakshana Bais's case are not applicable was that the holding of the petitioners herein was about Ac.0.10 guntas and thus it is less than the ceiling limit. The learned single Judge also observed that on the date of coming into force of the 1976 Act, the land in question was situated out side the master plan of Hyderabad city and further it was less than the ceiling limit. As such the Act has no application,

8. The learned Advocate-General contended as follows : (1) the findings of the learned single Judge are quite incorrect and arbitrary, (2) learned single Judge did not take into consideration Schedule-1 of ULC Act. (3) Madapur was part of Moosapet on the notification dated i.e., 1-1-1976. (4) By mere correspondence between the parties, the area once notified cannot be excluded from the provisions of the Act 1976. (5) There was no order on 23-10-1996 passed in favour of the petitioners. (6) On facts the principles laid down in the case of Sulakshana Bai's case and so also in WPNo. 19 of 95 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court apply and not the principles laid down either in Atia Mohammadi Begum's case or in Ashok Rao 's case. (6) The land in question was converted into non-agricultural purpose in the year 1993. As such, the same should have been taken note of by the learned single Judge, (7) The events that took place subsequent to the coming into force of the ULC Act shall be taken into consideration. (8) Madapur has been excluded in Schedule I to the Act. (9) Before seeking clearance certificate the concerned landowner should have filed an application before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority seeking exemption. But no such application was filed either by the vendors of the petitioners or by the petitioners. As such the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling were right in issuing notice under Section 6 of the Act. (10) Whether the master plan was applicable or the provisions of the Act are applicable to the land in question and Madapur village outside the purview of Section 4(a) of the Act are all the questions to be considered and decided by the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and not by this Court. (11) The nature and use of the land lias been changed from agriculture to the house sites. As such the Act 1976 applies. (12) Neither the change of use nor explanation under Section 6 of the ULC Act liad come up for consideration in Alia Mohammadi Begum's case. As such the principles laid down in the said case have no application to the case on hand. (13) At page Nos.46 and 47 of the counter-affidavit, the State has taken a clear-cut stand as to the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the 1976 Act and how the petitioners are not entitled for seeking clearance certificate. Thus arguing he sought the appeal be allowed.

towards developmental charges which was already remitted; (5) on 3-8-1996, the Government issued a draft variation notification; (6) on 9-8-1996, the HUDA directed the petitioners to pay Ihe amount of Rs.2,97,128/- to the HUDA as directed earlier;

(7) on 19-8-1996, the HUDA informed the petitioners that it has received the amount as developmental charges at the rate of Rs.20/-per sq.mctre for an area of 48,568 sq.metres;

(8) in fact the Government in G.O.Ms.No.467 dated 3-9-1996 ordered the change of land use and described the land in dispute as residential zone; (9) the petitioners are 49 in number each holding 1000 Sq.metres and, thus their holding comes within the ceiling limit; (10) on the date of coming into force of the Act 1976, i.e., 17-12-1976, Madapur was not included in the master plan of Hyderabad, (11) on 16-10-1978, Madapur was bifurcated from Moosapct Gram panchayat and constituted as Madapur Gram Panchayat including Madapur and Guttala Begumpet Villages; (12) on 23-6-1980 the master plan of Hyderabad was amended extending the same to Madapur village with effect from 23-6-1980. Madapur ceased to be the part of Moosapet Panchayat; (13) on 22-12-1988, the Government issued a memo informing that sale of agricultural lands without the Special Officer's permission or clearance where master plan is extended is permissible; (14) the Government also instructed the authorities to dispense with the production of clearance certificate, in respect of such lands: (15) the Government directed the registering authorities to register the documents wherever the lands sought to be registered which are not covered by ULC Act; (16) the Government by its memo dated 18-4-1989 informed that Guttala Begumpet is within the peripheral area but not in core area as on 16-10-1978 and thus Madapur which is 2 kms. away from Guttala Begumpet was not included in the core area; (17) on 31-10-1988, exemption was ordered to alienate an extent of Ac.5.00 (18) in G.O.Ms.No.289, dated 1-6-1989 additional extent of 40% for lay out and for other purposes i.e., Ac. 1.23 equivalent to 5+2+1.33 acres (8.33 acres) were permitted; (19) as the lands in question arc within the ceiling limit, there is no necessity to obtain permission; (20) when ULC Act has no application, there was no prohibition in purchasing the land measuring an extent of Ac. 0.10 guntas by each petitioner, (21) on 27-3-1997, the petitioners submitted an application to the HUDA seeking permission to form group housing scheme and they also paid Rs.35,300/-, but incorrectly the HUDA started insisting the petitioners to produce the'no objection certificate' or clearance certificate' obtained from the Special Officer, (22) on 17-10-1986, the petitioners approached the Special Officer and requested him to issue necessary certificate, but he remained silent; (23) the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Alia Mohammadi Begum's case and this Court in Ashok Rao 's case sqarely apply to the facts of the case on hand, whereas the principles laid down in Sulakshana Bai's case and in Agarwal's case , on facts have no application; (24) the principles laid down in Sulakshana's case can be held as obiter and so also the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 19 of 1995; (25) as far as the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Agarwal's case is concerned that was a case where the village is situated in Nagar Mahapalika. and the land was used as a vacant land. (26) Even subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, HUDA granted permission in respect of the land in S.No.70/2 and 71 of Madapur village in favour of one T. Mahesh Babu and another. Though the case of the petitioners is similarly placed, the HUDA took a different attitude. As such it is nothing but either misusing or abusing of powers conferred on HUDA; (27) The stand of the respondents runs contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31-10-1988 which was issued granting exemption to transfer the land upto an extent of Ac.5.00 held by the holder as excess vacant land. Thus arguing, he sought the appeal be dismissed.