SPECIAL OFFICER ULC Vs. JYOTHI ART STUDIO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed by Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Nampally, questioning the order passed by the learned single Judge, allowing Writ Petition No.7127 of 1996.

(2.) Respondent is a registered firm. It has purchased an extent of 3009.17 sq. yards of vacant site-equivalent to 252597 sq. metres, from the A.P. Housing Board, in public auction held on 28-12-1994 for a consideration of Rs.37,67,330/-. On receipt of consideration, the A.P. Housing Board, represented by its Estate Officer, executed a registered sale deed bearing document No. 677/95 dated 24-2-1995 in favour of respondent-firm, and accordingly, possession was delivered.

(3.) The respondent-firm, with a view to construct a Cinema Theatre in the above plot of land, approached several authorities, including Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), seeking 'No Objection Certificate The HUDA while endorsing 'No Objection', through its letter dared 9-1-1996, imposed a condition that the clearance is subject to obtaining clearance from the Urban Land Ceilings viz., the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent-firm approached the appellant by filing declaration on 3-2-1996 under Section 6(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1996 (sic. 1976)-hereinafter called 'The Act'. Curiously, the appellant-Competent Authority, passed an order dated 18-3-1996 under Sections 8(4) and 9 of the Act, holding that the respondent-firm is entitled to hold an extent of 1000 sq. metres only under Section 4(1 )(b) of the Act, and as such, the balance extent of 1515.97sq. metres is determined as surplus land. Questioning the said order, the respondent firm filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the nature of the land has to be determined with reference to the Master Plan which was existing as on the date of commencement of the Act and not according to the Master Plan prepared subsequent to the commencement of the Act, and inasmuch as Kukatpalli, where the land is situate, is beyond the Municipal limits of Hyderabad as on the date of the commencement of the Act, and the Master Plan covering the said land came to be prepared and published only on 29-9-1980, which is much leter to the commencement of the Act, the provisions of the Act have no application to the said land. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge, did not decide whether the firm should be treated as jurisdic (sic. juridical) person/ individual, or whether the land should be divided notionally between the partners for purpose of computation under the Act.