MENTA MASTAN RAO Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners purchased an extent of 5,705.88 Square metres of land in R.S.No. 341/2B in the year, 1974 by a registered sale deed dated 2-1-1974 after obtaining an exemption under Section 7(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act 12 of 1972 vide G.O.Ms.No. 1049 dated 24-7-1973. It appears, thereafter both the petitioners constituted a partnership firm by the name and style of M/s. Devi Dall & Flour Mill, Vijayawada, constructed a mill along with other two structures and according to the petitioners, the said constructions were made prior to the appointed day fixed under the Urban Land (Ceilings and Regulation) Act, 1976. The appointed day being 28-1-1976. The petitioners averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the plan for the said buildings was sanctioned on 10-2-1974 and they were assessed to tax from the year 1974-75. Apart from the said land, both the petitioners owned other extents of lands in Vijayawada, which according to the petitioners were occupied by the constructed structures by the appointed day. Both the petitioners filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. A draft statement as required under Section 8(1) of the Act was prepared and served on the petitioners treating the entire land as vacant land though the same is covered by the buildings. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Government of Andhra Pradesh seeking an exemption under Section 20(l)(a) of the Act. The petitioners allege that though no such exemption was required as the land is occupied by the buildings, and therefore not a vacant land within the meaning of the expression Vacant land' as defined under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioners further asserted in the affidavit that in their objections filed under Section 8(3) of the Act in response to the Section 8(1) draft statement brought this fact to the notice of the second respondent.

(2.) The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No. 752 (sic. 1752) Revenue(U.C.lII)Departmentdated 17-10-1978 exempted an extent of 5,705.88 Square metres in R.S.No.341/2B of Gunadala village, Vijayawada Urban from the provisions of the Act. In view of the exemption granted by the Government, the second respondent issued proceedings holding that both the petitioners to be holding vacant land within the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. The said orders have become final. No appeals were preferred by either of the petitioners under any one of the provisions of the Act.

(3.) However, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Meera Gupta vs. State of West Bengal the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a memorandum dated 15-2-1994 which reads as follows: "The Supreme Court of India delivered judgment on 22-10-1991 in Civil Appeal No. 4235/91 (Mrs. Meera Gupta vs. State of West Bengal and others) regarding interpretation of Section 4(9) of me Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. According to this judgment the land occupied by a building having a dwelling unit therein and also the land appurtenant thereto, should be treated as vacant land only, for the purposes of calculation of excess vacant land, if the construction of such building as a dwelling unit therein, the construction of which started prior to the appointed day with the approval of appropriate authority, is not to be treated as a vacant land for the purposes of calculation of total excess vacant land. (2) In the letter second cited, the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, issued a clarification, accordingly. (3) In the Government Memo. 3rd cited, the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings has been requested to keep the above clarification in view at the time of disposal of appeals. (4) The Government have examined the point whether the judgment in C.A.No. 4235/91 (Mrs. Meera Gupta vs. West Bengal and others) can be made applicable in all the cases where possession of the land has not been taken over by issuing a notice under Section 10(6) of the Act by invoking the powers under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 either suo motu or on a representation. (5) The Government are advisee! that Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides thatno person shall be deprived of his/her property except in accordance with law. In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India, which is the law of the land, the notification issued by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is not legal and valid. The consequential notification issued under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act is also not legal and valid. Therefore, there is no vesting of the alleged excess vacant in the Government upon the publication of the declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act. Consequently no notice in writing can be issued under Section 10(5) of the Act calling upon the person concerned to surrender or devlier possession of the alleged excess vacant land, that vests, to the Government and therefore the question of taking possession of the land also would not arise. (6) In all such cases the Government have decided to exercise its powers under Section 34 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act to give effect to the judgment of Supreme Court and desist from taking possession of excess vacant land from the concerned person by setting aside the final orders issued under Section 8(4) by the Competent Authorities. (7) All the Special Officers and Competent Authorities Urban Land Ceilings and the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings are requested to bear in mind the above points in respect of the pending cases and also while processing the case by applying the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Meera Gupta's case."