ANTHONY AMMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is holding an extent of Ac. 1-32 guntas appurtenant to bungalow bearing No.42 situate at Careappa Road, Bolaram, Secunderabad. The petitioner filed her declaration under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for short "the Act". She was declared to possess an extent of 3627.65 square meters of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. The petitioner then filed an application dated 16-9-1976 before the competent authority under Section 20 of the Act for exemption of that excess extent of land. That application was rejected by the 1st respondent herein in its proceedings No.ULC/DLC/EED/GLR No.1/294/76/ 1580 D(L) dated 14-5-1980. The petitioner submits that she was not informed of the rejection of her application and it is only when the excess land was sought to be taken over she came to know of the order of rejection and she filed this writ petition. Initially the petitioner only prayed for a declaration that the action of the respondents in taking possession of the land in question is illegal. Later she filed W.P.M.P.No.32835 of 1995 for amendment of the prayer seeking the relief that the proceedings of the respondents is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the same is void. That petition is ordered and the writ petition is allowed to be amended.

(2.) The Defence Estates Officer filed counter-affidavit for the respondents. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the request of the petitioner for exemption was rejected and the order of rejection was issued in her name, as such it would not be correct to say that the communication was not received by her. It is further stated that the proceedings under Sections 8(2) to 10(5) of the Act have been concluded and the petitioner was directed to hand over the excess land. It is, however, added that the claim of the petitioner to exempt the appurtenant land is superfluous as the same is already allowed to be retained by the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. In the above circumstances it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of rejection is a bald order without any reason and it was also passed without giving an opportunity of being heard, therefore it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.