COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE Vs. SHAHEEN BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents herein and quashing the orders of the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings., Hyderabad as confirmed by the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling and declaring that each of the writ petitioners does not hold any vacant urban land in excess of the ceiling limit.

(2.) Thwrit petitioners (who are respondents herein) claim to be co-owners of certain open lands and buildings situate in the Urban Agglomeration of Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 1-10-1987 under Section 8 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') after making an enquiry into the declarations filed by the writ petitioners holding that each of the writ petitioners holds surplus vacant land to the tune of 6,077.49 sq. meters which they are liable to surrender. The said order passed by the 2nd appellant was confirmed by the Commissioner or Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling- the 1st appellant herein, by an order dated 14-12-1988. Challenging these orders, the writ petition was filed and as already stated the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition declaring that none of the writ petitioners held excess vacant land. A glance at the following table will give an idea of the items in dispute and the findings recorded by the original -authority: TABLE <FRM>JUDGEMENT_648_ALT3_1991Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The learned single Judge accepted the claim of the writ petitioners in respect of each of the above items. Regarding the first item open land at Yellareddyguda, the learned Judge relying upon certain letters issued by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority, held that the land in question cannot be treated as vacant land inasmuch as it is a water-logged area and the building permission was refused by the Corporation on that ground. The learned single Judge held that the writ petitioners are entitled to appurtenant land as claimed by them in respect of items 2 to 6 referred to above in the table. It is on the basis of these findings, the learned single Judge declared the writ petitioners as non-surplus holders of vacant land.