BADDAM MAHANDER REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in W. P. No. 5594 of 2008 purchased different extents of land in Sy. No. 27/1 of Guttala begumpet Village, through various sale deeds. The land in that survey number was originally owned by one Mr. V. Venkateswara Rao. Thereafter, the land changed hands. Since it is within the Hyderabad Urban agglomeration, declaration under Section 6 (1)of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') was filed. It is stated that an order under Section 8 (4) of the Act was passed, holding that the land in sy. No. 27/1 is in excess of ceiling limits.

(2.) THE Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29. 7. 2002 providing for allotment/ regularization of excess land, subject to payment of the amount fixed therefor. The petitioners intended to avail that benefit, and accordingly submitted applications. The Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 539, dated 10. 5. 2006, extending the benefit under G. O. Ms. No. 455 to the petitioners and certain others. While implementing the orders, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, prepared some sketches for the lands covered by G. O. Ms. No. 539. The 5th respondent and certain others, including the petitioner in W. P. No. 16692 of 2008 submitted applications/complaints, before the authorities of the urban Land Ceiling Department, alleging that the demarcation made in favour of the writ petitioners is incorrect, and that the land in Sy. No. 27/2 was also added to their plots.

(3.) THE Inspector of Survey of the office of the Special Officer-cum-Competent authority the 4th respondent herein, issued intimation notice dated 18. 2. 2008 to the petitioners, requiring them to be present before him on 15. 3. 2008, together with the necessary record. It was pointed out that representations have been received to the effect that some variation in the dimensions and boundaries for the land in Sy. No. 27 of Guttala Begumpet Village were noticed. Steps were initiated obviously, to rectify them. The notice is challenged in W. P. No. 5594 of 2008.