K NARAYANA Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 501, Revenue (UC. II) Department dt. 9-3-1983 granting exemption under S.20(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

(2.) Aedla Narayan Reddy, the 3rd respondent herein applied to the Government on 16-4-1981 for grant of exemption in respect of 4 acres 2 1/2 guntas of excess land owned by him situate at Nacharam in the vicinity of Hyderabad so as to enable him to sell it in favour of M/s. Ramakrishna Cine Studio, the 2nd respondent herein. In the application it was mentioned that the 3rd respondent intends to develop a Horticulture Studio for outdoor shootings. This land is an agricultural land situate adjacent to the land owned by the 3rd respondent. The Managing Partner of M/s. Ramakrishna Cine Studio, Sri N. Harikrishna, the 2nd respondent herein filed an affidavit that the land held by Narayan Reddy is adjacent to the plot of land owned by them, that the land occupied by them is not sufficient to their requirements, that they intend to develop a Horticulture Studio of a novel type useful for outdoor shootings. The application was processed through the department and the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the Commissioner of Land Ceilings, Hyderabad recommended for exemption as the land was proposed to be developed as a Horticulture Garden for the purpose of outdoor shootings which would help the Cinema Industry. In the light of these reports, the State Government, the first respondent herein passed the impugned G.O. exempting an extent of 4 acres 2 1/2 guntas (16440 square metres) held by Narayan Reddy for sale in favour of the 3rd respondent. It is the validity of this action that is challenged by the three petitioners on several grounds such as colourable exercise of power, that it is not in public interest, that the exemption was for an illegal purpose and that the land was not used for the purpose for which exemption was granted. They say that they brought this action as they are interested in proper implementation of provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

(3.) The learned Advocate General, who took notice at the stage of admission submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the petition as they are not persons aggrieved and they cannot be said to have sufficient interest in the proceedings. He also submitted that no public injury is involved.