KALLEM SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kallem Srinivas Reddy and his two brothers represented by their General Power of Attorneys (GPAs), namely. Myakala Sathaiah and Myakala Mahender. filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not communicating the orders of exemption on application dated 01 -3-2006 made by the petitioners seeking benefit under G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31-10-1988, as illegal and arbitrary, and tor a further declaration that the petitioners are entitled for tne exemption of then land from the purview of the provisions in Chapter-Ill of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 1976 (the Act. for brevity). The petitioners also seek a direction to respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the said property.

(2.) The petitioners are allegedly the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.5.20 gts (22,782 Sq.mts) in survey Nos.32, 34 and 35 of Kothapet village of Saroornagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. After corning into force of the Act, the petitioners filed declaration under Section G oi the Act, which was registered as C.C.No.J1/3816/76, and they were declared as surplus landholders in Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. A reading of paragraphs 6 and 8 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition would show that after passing the final orders under Section 8(4) of the Act, the third respondent issued notifications under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act as well as notices under Sections 10(5) and 1C(6) of the Act, to take possession. Be that as it may, the petitioners also preferred the revision petition under Section 34 of the Act against the orders of the third respondent which is allegedly pending before the Government.

(3.) In 2000, petitioners entered into an agreement of sale-cum GPA in favour oi Myakaia Sathalah and Myakala Mahender. These two persons along with four others filed an application on 01-3-2006 before the tirst respondent requesting necessary instructions to the third respondent, that the land purchased by the GPAs is exempted from the purview of the Act. as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.733. The first respondent vide memo No.10324/UC II/ 06(3), dated 14-3-2006, requested the third respondent tc send a detailed report as per G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31 -10-1988 read with G.O.Ms.No 217, dated 13-4-2000 along with records in C C.No.JI/3816/76. Even when the matter is under consideration, Sathaiah and Mahender along with four others again filed another representation dated 23-1-2006 requesting the Government to issue necessary instructions io third respondent to exempt the land.