N NARSING RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Petitions relate to common subject matter. Therefore, they are heard and being disposed of together.

(2.) THE petitioners are the declarants under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ''the Act ''). Though their lands at the time of application of the Act were not included in the Master Plan, subsequently, the Master Plan was extended to other areas including the petitioners ' lands on and with effect from 28 -9 -1980. Therefore, the lands sold by the petitioners situated in Kothaguda and Kondapur villages by 10 -3 -1980 were treated as vacant lands and a notification was issued under sub -section (3) of Section 10 of the Act declaring the same as excess lands. The said notification was published in the official Gazette on 24 -11 -1982. A similar notification was issued in respect of the lands in Meerpet village. Questioning both these notifications, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.3920/83 and 4502/1984. The learned single Judge of this Court, by Judgment dated 26 -8 -1993, allowed the said Writ Petitions based on the law that was in force at that time as reflected in Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1993(2) SCC 546). It is clearly stated by the learned Judge that the lands in question were included by way of extension of the Master Plan, vide G.O.Ms.No.391, Municipal Administration, dated 23 -6 -1980, which was published in the Official Gazette on 29 -9 -1980; that as on the date of commencement of the Act, the petitioners ' lands were not included in the Master Plan as they were not within the Municipal limits, and that the authorities cannot convert the agricultural land into vacant land based on the extended Master Plan by their unilateral action. Accordingly, this Court has set -aside both the notifications. It is not in dispute that this Judgment has become final. However, much later, the view taken in Atia Mohammadi Begum (1 -supra) was reversed by the Supreme Court inState of A.P. Vs. N. Audikesava Reddy ((2002) 1 SCC 227). Obviously, taking a cue from the Judgment in N. Audikesava Reddy (2 -supra), the respondents have reopened the proceedings under the Act and issued notices to the petitioners under Section 10(5) of the Act on 21 -10 -2003. In response to the said notices, petitioner No.1 filed Memo dated 10 -11 -2003 wherein he has stated that as this Court has already quashed the notifications by the common Judgment delivered on 26 -8 -1993, the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings purportedly based on the Judgment in N. Audikesava Reddy (2 -supra). However, the respondents appear to have proceeded further and claimed to have issued proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act and taken possession of the lands on 27 -3 -2008. This action of the respondents in reopening the proceedings and purporting to take possession of the petitioners ' lands is questioned in these Writ Petitions.

(3.) IN my opinion, a Judgment rendered based on the law that was in force will not cease to be valid merely because the legal position based on which the Judgment was rendered was subsequently altered. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that while overruling the Judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum (1 -supra), the Supreme Court in N. Audikesava Reddy (2 -supra) has authorised the Urban Land Ceiling authorities to suo motu reopen the proceedings which were terminated. With the quashing of the two notifications by this Court in W.P.Nos.3920/1983 and 4502/1984 by Judgment dated 26 -8 -1993, the proceedings initiated under the Act in respect of the subject lands got terminated. Unless the said Judgment is reversed, the respondents have no power or authority to suo motu reopen the proceedings based on the subsequent change in legal position. In this view of the matter, the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of the petitioners ' lands subsequent to the Judgment dated 26 -8 -1983 in W.P.Nos.3920/1983 and 4502/1984, are declared as void and any orders passed therein as unenforceable. The physical possession of the lands covered by the two notifications quashed by this Court in the said Writ Petitions shall be redelivered to the petitioners. It is however made clear that if the respondents have regularised any part of the land covered by the said two notifications in favour of third parties under G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29 -7 -2002, the petitioners will not be entitled to recover possession unless they successfully question those regularisation proceedings.