STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP Vs. A BHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Andhra Pradesh is the appellant herein. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 13-9-2001 passed in W.P. No. 12823 of 2000 holding that the writ petitioner is entitled to have possession of 453 Square Yards in Survey No. 135/1 of Gudimalkapur village, Asif Nagar Mandal, Hyderabad.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this Writ Appeal are briefly set out as hereunder: The writ petitioner (1st respondent in the Writ Appeal) purchased an extent of 453 square yards of land situated in Survey No. 135/1 of Gudimlakapur village, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad from the vendor, one D. Mallaiah, An agreement of sale was entered into between the parties on 1-12-1975 and the writ petitioner was put into possession of the said property. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. 33 of 1976) (for short the Urban Land Ceiling Act') came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 12-7-1976. Therefore, on 13-5-1976 the vendor of the writ petitioner issued a notice under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act to the Competent Authority of the Urban Land Ceilings expressing his intention to dispose of the above said property and seeking the authority to exercise its option. Since the Competent Authority did not exercise its option within the statutory period of sixty days in response to the notice dated 13-5-1976 issued by the vendor of the writ petitioner under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, a registered sale deed was executed on 5-7-1976. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the vendor filed his declaration on 15-9-1976 and thereafter the holding of the vendor was assessed under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and ultimately he was declared as surplus land holder. It is the case of the writ petitioner that after the issuance of the notice under Section 8(4), final settlement order under Section 9 and 10(3) notification and 10(5) notice, further proceedings were sought to be taken under the Urban Land Ceilling Act. At that juncture, the writ petitioner came to know that her vendor was declared as surplus land holder and consequently she was sought to be dispossessed. Hence the writ petitioner filed W.P.No. 12823 of 2000 for issue of a Writ of Certiorari seeking to quash the impugned order issued under Sec. 8(4), final statement under Section 9, Section 10(1) notification, Section 10(3) publication and Section 10(5) notice in C.C.Nos. B-1/8220/ 76, B-1/8221/76 and B-1/8222/76 and the consequential order under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, if any.

(3.) It was contended before the learned single Judge that the declarant could not have included this piece of land in his holding as he cannot be said to be validly holding the said land under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and therefore if any land which is not includable is included by the declarant it cannot be taken cognizance under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. It is also submitted before us that all the statutory notices issued were issued in the name of dead person and hence they are all void ab initio. It was also contended before the learned single Judge that it is incumbent on the part of the Enquiry Officer to have enquired into the matter as to whether the declarant possessed the land as declared by him or whether he had created any encumbrance or alienated the property in question. The learned single Judge relying on the Apex Court judgment reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. HEH, The Nizam, Hyderabad held that the original vendor of the writ petitioner could not have been holding the land on the date of the enactment of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and that he lost possession by virtue of the agreement of sale on 1-12-1975 and subsequent registration of the sale deed. Accordingly the Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge holding that the writ petitioner is entitled to have possession of the land in question. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned single Judge, the State of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition) has preferred this Writ Appeal.