STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. V VENKATASWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Valluru Venkateswara Rao was holder of excess vacant land to the extent of 5849 sq. metres (1 acre 44 cents) as per the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). He made an application under Section 20(1) of the Act claiming exemption on the ground that he had entered into an unregistered lease agreement on 1-5-1975 with M/s. Ushodaya Publications Pvt. Ltd. for a period of 33 years. This lease was entered into during the period when there was no prohibition for alienation of vacant land. The Act also prohibited any transaction other than bona fide sales during the period from 17-2-1975 to 28-1-1976. The lessee also filed an application seeking exemption under the Act. The State Government, after considering the matter, issued a Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 7 Rev. (UC. III) Department, dated 3-1-1984 granting exemption under the Act with certain conditions attached including the one that after the period of exemption of 33 years of lease, the land would vest in the State Government. Respondent Valluru Venkateswara Rao filed Writ Petition No. 19026 of 1988 before the High Court challenging the said condition imposed in the aforementioned G.O. granting exemption. A learned single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 29-3-1994 quashed said G.O.Ms. No. 7, dated 3-1-1984 and directed consideration of exemption before the preparation of the draft statement under Section 8 of the Act taking a view that the question of exemption after preparation of the draft statement was not permissible in law. Aggrieved by this order of the learned single Judge, the State of Andhra Pradesh filed Writ Appeal No. 791 of 1994 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The respondent Valluru Venkateswara Rao also filed Writ Appeal No. 851 of 1994. The Division Bench of the High Court dealt with both the appeals together and passed the impugned judgment dated 9-4-1997 following the judgment of this Court and restored the G.O.Ms. No. 7 dated 3-1-1984 but held that the condition, namely, that after the lease period of 33 years, the land would vest in the State Government, contained in para 4(d) of G.O. Ms. No. 7, could not be sustained. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, the State of Andhra Pradesh has filed Civil Appeal No. 5956 of 1997, to the extent of striking down condition No. 4(d) contained in G.O.Ms. No. 7. M/s. Ushodaya Publications Pvt. Ltd., had filed application for impleading before the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeals. The Division Bench of the High Court did not allow the application filed for impleadment. M/s. Ushodaya Publications Pvt. Ltd., has filed Civil Appeal Nos. 5957-5959 of 1997 to the extent aggrieved by the impugned order. The original respondent Valluru Venkateswara Rao has died and his son is on record as legal representative.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the appellant that clause (d) of para 4 of the order of exemption is valid and if the said clause is void, exemption granted subject to such condition itself becomes void and inoperative; the State Government under Section 20 of the Act was competent to grant exemption subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order of exemption and as such condition contained in clause (d) of para 4 of the order could be validly imposed; exemption did not confer any vested right in the respondent; exemption was granted only in the discretion of the State Government. The High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 could not substitute the said condition.

(3.) On behalf of the Legal Representative of the Respondent Valluru Venkateswara Rao submissions were made supporting the impugned order. Pointing out to scheme of the Act and, in particular, referring to Sections 6 and 8 of the Act, it was urged that after lease period of 33 years, land could not be vested automatically with the State Government; even after the expiry of the lease period, if the vacant land became excess land, it is open for filing the fresh declaration and it is equally open to exercise option as to which land within the ceiling limit is to be retained.