T SRINIVASULU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case disclose that the office of the Special Officer and Competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, is functioning under the impression that there does not exist any Rule of Law.

(2.) THE petitioner and his family members held various extents of land in different survey numbers of Tummabowli and Gaddi annaram Villages, Saroornagar Mandal, ranga Reddy District. Since the villages are within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, they filed declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short 'the Act')- After verification of the entire matter, the 2nd respondent passed an order under Section 8 (4) of the act, on 21-07-1982, holding that the petitioner is not liable to surrender any excess land. The fact that the land held by the petitioner is put to agriculture use; was taken note of.

(3.) AFTER about a quarter century, the incumbent in the office of the 2nd respondent thought of reopening the proceedings on the sole ground that the lands are put to a different use. He formed this opinion on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer on 21-01-2006. Immediately, he swung into action and straightaway passed an order, on 30-01-2006, holding that the petitioner is liable to surrender an extent of 40,601. 71 sq. metres. Neither any notice was issued, nor the proceedings are referable to any provision of the Act. The Government, in turn, issued G. O. Ms. No. 945, Revenue (UC. I)Department, dated 02-08-2008, allotting the iand of the petitioner, as well as certain other extents of different individuals, to the A. P. Housing Board. The petitioner challenges the proceedings, referred to above.