Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration and the parties to all the three appeals are also common, we have heard all the appeals together.

Though the facts have been narrated elaborately in the order under appeal, we deem it necessary to refer to the essential facts for proper appreciation of the controversy involved in the case.

The petitioners in W.P.No.9198 of 2001 claim to be the legal heirs of one G.V.L.S. Sharma who was the owner of Ac.16-23 guntas of land and 115 sq.yards of land in Sy.Nos.105, 110, 113, 114 & 149/3 of Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal (Old Golconda Mandal), Rangareddy District corresponding to TS Nos.16/1 and 16/2. After his death on 8.2.1975, ULC Act came into force and accordingly the petitioners in W.P.No.9198 of 2001 filed their Statements under Section 6 (1) of the ULC Act. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Officer') by order dated 7.5.1980 held that they are surplus land holders. Against the said order, the declarants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by order dated 27.1.1997 and de no enquiry by the Special Officer was ordered. After conducting such enquiry, the Special Officer passed an order on 8.11.2000 under Section 8 (4) of the ULC Act holding that the declarants were surplus holders of land to an extent of 23930.38 sq. mts. each.

Aggrieved by the same, the declarants filed W.P.No.9198 of 2001 contending inter alia that each of them is entitled to hold 1/3rd share in the land in question which is the coparcenery joint family property and that the orders passed by the Special Officer as well as the Appellate Authority are vitiated since no opportunity was afforded to them to produce the necessary evidence in support of the objections filed under Section 8 (4) of the ULC Act. It was also contended that the impugned orders came to be passed in haste to defeat the rights of the declarants acquired under ULC Repeal Act, 1999 which was about to be enforced in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It was also specifically pleaded in the writ petition that the action of the Special Officer in issuing the notice under Section10 (5) of the ULC Act is arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted.

The Special Officer filed the counter-affidavit on 21.11.2007 denying the petitioners' plea that the impugned orders were passed without affording them proper opportunity to adduce evidence. While asserting that the land in question is a vacant land covered by the statutory Master Plan as on the date of the commencement of ULC Act i.e., 17.2.1976 and thus the same is covered by the provisions of ULC Act, it was contended that the declarants were rightly determined as surplus land holders. It was also contended that the ULC Act, 1976 was very much in force since ULC Repeal Act had not been adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh at the relevant point of time. It was further contended that the notice under Section 10 (5) of the ULC Act, dated 15.2.2001 was served on the petitioner on 23.2.2001 with a direction to surrender the surplus land that the sub-division record was shown to the petitioner upon which he had given written consent on 23.2.2001 to retain the land existing within the green boundaries.

While W.P.No.9198 of 2001 was pending, the Housing Co-operative Society, which claims to be in possession of the excess vacant land having purchased the same from the declarants under an Agreement of Sale, filed W.P.No.26206 of 2009. It was pleaded in the said writ petition that the said Housing Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as 'Society') entered into an agreement of sale dated 9.12.1980 with the petitioners 1 & 2 in W.P.No.9198 of 2001 for sale of the excess vacant land in terms of the guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.4270, dated 10.09.1980 for transfer of vacant lands held by the excess land holders to the Registered Cooperative Societies by granting exemption under Section 20 (1) (a) of the ULC Act; that the society was put in possession of the land in question and made applications seeking exemption. However by order dated 10.2.1983 the Government had rejected the application of the society and the declarants for grant of exemption. Aggrieved by the same, they filed W.P.No.2658 of 1984 and the same was disposed of by order dated 5.4.1989 setting aside the order dated 10.2.1983 and directing to reconsider the application for exemption in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4270, dated 10.09.1980 as modified by G.O.Ms.No.136, dated 28.1.1981. The request was again rejected by Memo dated 1.3.2005 and challenging the same the society filed W.P.No.36281 of 2005. Though the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 18.11.2006 it was left open to the society to seek enforcement of their rights, if any, under the agreement of sale. The said order was confirmed by a division bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.347 of 2007 and also by the Supreme Court. However it was claimed that as the ULC Act itself was repealed w.e.f. 27.3.2008, there is no need for grant of exemption for sale of excess land. It was further stated that O.S.No.118 of 2003 filed by the society against the declarants for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 9.12.1980 is pending on the file of the II-Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.1019 of 2003 restraining the declarants or anybody claiming through them from transferring or alienating or changing the nature of the suit property has been in operation. It is also pleaded that an advocate- commissioner was appointed in O.S.No.118 of 2003 to inspect the land in question and as per the Commissioner's report dated 16.5.2003 it is clear that the petitioner society is in possession of the land in question. Thus it was contended that the possession was never taken by the State and that by virtue of the ULC Repeal Act, the entire proceedings are liable to be declared as abated.