P GANESWAR RAO Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34303 of 1997 and 2249 of 1998 challenging the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 29-7-1999.

(2.) Smt. Sulakshana Bai is the owner of an extent of Ac.40-14 guntas situated in S.Nos.63, 71,72 and 73 of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is situated within the urban agglomeration of Hyderabad. In pursuance of the introduction of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Act' for brevity), which came into force on 17-2-1976, she filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act declaring that she is in possession and enjoyment of the above land as an agricultural land. On 18-12-1976 the Special Tahsildar submitted a verification report stating that the landowner is in possession of a total extent of 1,62,625 sq. mtrs. of land. On 20-1-1977 the urban land ceiling authorities issued notice under Sections 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. On 24-11-1984 the Special Officer and the competent authority passed an order under Section 8 (4) declaring that the land owner is in possession of the excess land to the extent of 1,62,625 sq. mtrs. Against the said order of the competent authority, Smt. Sulakshana Bai preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling Act and the same was dismissed on 27-6-1985 as devoid of merits. On 7-2-1985 the concerned authorities issued a notice under Section 10 (1) of the Act and it was published in A.P. Gazette No.146 dated 2-8-1985 proposing to acquire the said excess land by the Government. On 2-8-1985 Section 10 (3) order was passed declaring that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and the land shall be deemed to be vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances w.e.f. the date so specified. On 26-8-1985 a notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued to the landowner requiring her to deliver the said land to the Government within 30 days from the service of the said notice. She acknowledged the said notice on 3-9-1985. After receipt of the said notice, Smt. Sulakshana Bai filed W.P.No.10103 of 1985 questioning the order under Section 8 (4) of the Act dated 24-11-1984 and the order of the appellate authority dated 27-6-1985. On 18-4-1996 the said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court and subsequently on 9-8-1996 the concerned officer took possession of the land in question and the same was handed over to the M.R.O., Saroornagar. After taking delivery of possession, the Government shifted the displaced persons under Nandanavanam Rehabilitation Project from the banks of river Musi and accommodated them in the surplus land taken possession by the Special Officer and the competent authority and houses are being constructed and the respective beneficiaries are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The land owner being aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench dated 18-4-1996 carried the matter to the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.17009 of 1996 on 9-9-1996 and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court at the admission stage itself. When the land owner failed in her efforts in getting the land exempted from the purview of the Act, the writ petitioners, who are the appellants herein, claiming themselves to be the purchasers of the land in question through sale-deeds for an extent of 300 sq. yds. each and for a consideration of Rs.3/- per sq. yd., filed W.P.Nos.2249 of 1998 and 34303 of 1997 and they were dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 29-7-1999. The writ petitioners being aggrieved by the common order of the learned single Judge preferred these appeals challenging its validity and legality.

(3.) The point for consideration is whether the writ petitioners are entitled for the relief of resumption of the land in question? Point: