Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is submitted that the petitioner was wrongly advised to make an application to the respondent No.2 on 31.12.2008, under G.O.Ms.No.747 Revenue (UCT) Department dated 18.06.2008, seeking regularization of the land by paying necessary charges of Rs.15,80,095/- by way of Demand Draft No. 181507, dated 30.12.2008. The petitioner had been in actual and physical and uninterrupted possession of the subject plot for the past 22 years. There was no master plan covering the plot of the petitioner (Madhapur Village) as on 17.02.1976, which is the appointed date under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regularization) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in SMT. ATIA MOHAMMED BEGUM v. STATE OF UP1, the ULC Act was not applicable to Madhapur village. Subsequently, the decision in ATIA MOHAMMED BEGUM's case (1 supra) was overruled by the Supreme Court in STATE OF AP AND OTHERS v. N. AUDIKESAVA REDDY2. The sale deed of the petitioner was executed after the decision in ATIA MOHAMMED BEGUM's case (1 supra) and before the decision in N. AUDIKESAVA REDDY's case (2 supra). Thus, the sale deed of the petitioner is valid. The petitioner was in possession of the subject plot, the same cannot be computed to the holding of his vendors. The petitioner was not issued any notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act and if any proceedings are initiated under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act behind the back of the petitioner, the same are null and void. The land did not vest in the Government under the ULC Act. Thus, there was no necessity for the petitioner to pay regularization amount of Rs.15,80,095/-.

7. That out of the total vacant land to an extent of 72336.55 sq. meters held by each individual, an extent of 1000.00 sq. meters was allowed to retain under Section 4(1)(b) of the ULC Act and each individual was determined as holding provisionally an extent of 71336.55 sq. meters in excess of the ceiling limit. As no objections have been received to Section 8(1) order, final order under Section 8(4) was passed and statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act was issued on 03.02.2004. Subsequently, it has come to the notice of the Government that the Special Deputy Collector (Industries) & Land Acquisition officer vide Proceedings No.B/737/96 dated 31.03.2003 issued orders permitting exchange of land in Sy.No.65 (which includes land declared surplus) with equal extent of land in Sy.No.64 held by APIIC as the exchange has been done before determination of surplus land. The Government has advised to take possession of land in Sy.No.64 in lieu of land declared surplus in Sy.No.65 vide Government Memo No.19748/UC-II/(3)/04-2 dated 14.03.2005.

7

8. It is further stated that on receipt of the clarification from the Government, Section 8(4) orders issued earlier on 03.02.2004 were modified under Section 45 of the ULC Act and revised final order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act was passed on 03.05.2005 declaring the original holders as surplus vacant landholders as under:

Sl. Name of the C.C. No. Location Sy. Total Extent Extent Extent No. declarant & No. ext. in fallen to allowed declared C.C. No. Sq. Mtrs. the share to retain in surplus in Sq. U/s in Sq. Mtrs Mtrs 4(1)(b) of the Act in Sq. Mtrs 1 Sri. Jahangir F1/4063/6(1) Madhapur 64 10924.85 5462.43 0.00 5462.43 Miya died per / 03 to L.Rs. Smt F1/4066/6(1) 66 53005.74 26502.87 1000.00 25502.87 Rameeza Bee / 03 and Others 67 80722.49 40361.24 0.00 40361.24 Total 72326.54 1000.00 71326.54 2 Sri. Jani Miya F1/40676(1)/ Madhap 64 10924.85 5462.42 0.00 5462.42 died per L.Rs. 03, to ur 66 53005.74 26502.87 1000.00 25502.87 Smt. Jahangir 4070 & Bee and Others 40726(1)/03 67 80722.49 40361.25 0.00 40361.25 Total 72326.54 1000.00 71326.54 Grand Total 144653.08 144653.08 2000.00 142653.08 Thereafter, a notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was published in A.P. Gazette No.99 dated 27.05.2005 and the declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published in A.P. Gazette No.184 dated 22.08.2005. Notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued to the declarant on 15.11.2005 and Section 10(6) of the ULC Act was issued on 27.09.2006 and possession was taken over on 13.10.2006 under cover of panchanama.

9. Thus, it is contended that the Village Madhapur was listed in Moosapet Gram Panchayat, which is a notified Gram Panchayat and falls within the core area of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and not under pheriperal area. So far an extent of 1,00,442.69 sq. meters in 160 cases are regularized and only 6,547.12 sq. meters is available for further regularization. Another 25 applications covering an extent of 20,372.82 sq. meters are pending for regularization including the plot of the petitioner. However, third party occupants similar to the petitioner have also filed applications for regularization of their plots falling in the Government land in Sy.No.64 claiming it to be part of the surplus land. On enquiry into such applications, their occupation was found to be falling in Sy.No.64 (Government Land). As such without conducting the comprehensive survey, it is not feasible to find out whether the present writ petitioner's plot No.65 is falling in surplus land in Sy.Nos.66 and 67 of Madhapur village or falling in Government land bearing Sy.No.64 of Madhapur village. Therefore, the then District Collector, Ranga Reddy District has passed orders in file No.F1/747/18357/2008 dated 29.06.2017 in C.C.No.F1/19795 & batch. That the application filed by the petitioner for regularization was not considered at this stage until the cloud about the exact extent of ceiling land is fixed on the ground to locate whether the plot of the petitioner is falling within surplus land declared in this case or in the Government land. The petitioner is a third party purchaser and sale deed dated 07.02.1995 is null and void under Section 5(3) of the ULC Act. The petitioner is neither a declarant nor legal representative of the declarant and is not entitled to any notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act.