BOBBA VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the members of the Society who have entered into an agreement to purchase the land with Smt. K. Achamamba who was the original owner of the land. In Writ Petition No.806.3 of 1995 filed by the legal representatives of Smt. K. Achamamba, I have referred to the facts and disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider her application for exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by a separate order, to-day itself. This writ petition is filed by the members of the Co-operative Society who have entered into an agreement with Smt. K. Achamamba for the purchase of the land for the purpose of construction of houses. The petitioners are three in number in the writ petition. They filed an application for exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the Act on 22-3-1982. The exemption claim was rejected by G.O.Ms. No.964 of 1983. The same was challenged in this Court and this Court quashed G.O.Ms. No.964 as illegal and directed the Government to consider individual applications independently. Thereafter, the application filed by the Society was rejected without giving the Society an opportunity relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Vasudeva v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1994 SCW 344 = AIR 1994 SC 923, on the ground that under Section 20(1)(b), no exemption can be granted on the ground of hardship. Aggrieved by the orders of the Government dated 6-7-1994, some of the members have filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has brought to my notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.R. Thandur v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SCW 1700, wherein the correctness of the judgment in S. Vasudeva's case (supra) was considered and it was held that it was not correctly decided. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that, in view of the judgment in Thandur's case (supra) the respondents have to consider their applications for the purpose of exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the Act. He also submitted that since their exemption applications were rejected without issuing any notice, there is violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, it should be remitted back to the 1st respondent to consider its case in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.R. Thandur 's case (supra). The question, therefore, is, what is the relief that is to be granted to the petitioners. It is true that the Society has not filed the writ petition but it is only the members of the Society who have filed the writ petition. However, the application for exemption filed by the Society has been rejected without giving the Society an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners who are the members of the Society aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent, are entitled to canvass the correctness of the judgment or orders of the Government. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the Co-operative Society while rejecting their application for exemption. Further, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Vasudeva's case (supra) relied upon by the respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for exemption has now been overruled in T.R. Thandur's case (supra). While holding that Vasudeva's case (supra) has not been correctly decided, the Supreme Court observed that,

(3.) From the above, it is clear that the Kamataka High Court following Vasudeva's case (supra) passed orders under Section 20(1) (b) which was set aside in the light of the view taken by them in T. R. Thandur's case (supra). Since the construction of Section 20(1)(b) of the Act in Vasudeva's case (supra) is no longer good law, the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to reconsider the whole issue afresh, in the light of the judgment in T.R. Thandur's case (supra) opportunity should be afforded to the Co-operative Society which has entered into an agreement with the original owner Smt. K. Achamamba.