LAWS(APH)-2004-2-56

M GOIRI DEVI Vs. GUNDLA RAMESH BABU

Decided On February 13, 2004
M.GOURI DEVI AND COMPANY Appellant
V/S
GUNDLA RAMESH BABU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a partnership firm. It claims to have purchased about Ac.3.00 of land in Survey Nos.17 to 23 of Girmajipet revenue village, part of Warangal town, through a sale deed, dated 1-2-1960. The petitioner contends that it submitted a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). It also contends that initially an order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed declaring that the petitioner holds land in excess of ceiling limits and after remand by this court, a fresh order was passed on 24-4-1998 declaring that the petitioner does not hold any land in excess of ceiling limits.

(2.) The petitioner contends that in the year 2002, it came to know about the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Warangal, dated 1G-8-1999, whereunder, certain entries were made in the revenue records in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.20, 21 and 22. At the instance of the petitioner, the matter was taken up by the Mandal Revenue Officer, who in turn has referred the matter to the District Revenue Officer for necessary orders. Through orders, dated 11-9-2002, the District Revenue Officer has set aside the order, dated 16-8-1999, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The petitioner contends that notwithstanding these developments, the Special Officer and Competent authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Warangal, respondent No.16 has issued individual proceedings, dated 6-12-2000, under Section 26 of the Act, in favour of respondents 1 to 15 intimating them that he does not intend to exercise the option to purchase the lands referred to therein. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings.

(3.) On behalf of respondents No.1 to 15, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the lands purchased by the petitioner under a sale deed, dated 1-2-1960, are different from those in respect of which the impugned intimations were given. It is also their case that the said proceedings do not have the effect of any adjudication and as such no interference is called for.