VENKAYALA CHALAMAYYA Vs. COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY U S 33 OF URBAN LAND CEILING ACT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the order of first respondent in C.No.VSP/109/ 91, dated 28.1.1994, which was passed in exercise of powers under Section 33 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, the Act). The petitioner is the owner of vacant land in Visakhapatnam urban agglomeration. He filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, being C.C. Nos.4649 and 6260 of 1976. Second respondent enquired into the same and issued a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act on 1.12.1978. The petitioner submitted objections. A revised draft statement was issued on 1.12.1978 holding that the petitioner is in possession of excess vacant land of 3167 Sq.mts. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before first respondent contending that his third minor son is divided as on the date of the commencement of the Act and therefore, he should have allotted separate holding under the Act, that an extent of 4009 Sq.mts was exempted under Section 20 of the Act vide orders of the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1299, dated 13.9.1982 and that an extent of 1353 Sq.mts of land in R.S.No.5/4 (part) in Gajuwaka Village which is under lease to Bharat Petroleum Corporation since 1957 should not be included in the holding of the petitioner. By the impugned order, first respondent partly allowed the appeal excluding an extent of 4009 Sq.mts. from the holding of the petitioner as it was exempted by the Government. Insofar as other contentions are concerned, the appeal was rejected.

(2.) Second respondent filed a counter- affidavit opposing the writ petition. Unmarried third minor son of petitioner V. Suryanarayana was member of petitioner's family and as such he is included in the definition of family and he is not entitled for separate holding. It is stated that unmarried minor children are not entitled to have separate holding and that the land leased out to M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation cannot be excluded from the holding of the petitioner under Section 19(1) of the Act.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.S. Anand, does not seriously pursue the submission that the land leased out to 255 256 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation stands excluded from the holding of the petitioner under Section 19(1) of the Act. Indeed, having regard to Section 19(2) of the Act, the land leased out to a company or corporation cannot be construed as exempted in favour of the petitioner who owns a vacant land. Be that as it is, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the third son of the petitioner who is a minor was having divided status at the commencement of the Act and therefore he should be allotted separate holding. Learned Counsel has placed before me the document which purport to be a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act filed by the petitioner and also relies on Section 2(f) and 2(i) of the Act which contain the definition of "family" and "person", respectively, in support of the submission that the petitioner's third minor son must be allotted separate holding.