STATE OF ANDHRA PPADESH REVENUE DEPT HYDERABAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REFORMS AND URBAN LAND CEILING HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the Government on 5-8-1993 challenging the order of the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling dated 27-2-1987.

(2.) The facts in brief stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the respondents 3 to 7 have filed declaration before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Visakhapatnam under Section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 declaring that Ac.6.20 of land in S.No.6/lA of Thadichetlapalam, Dondaparthy village in Visakhapatnam urban agglomeration which is under the occupation of the Defence Department since 1939 under a lease, has to be deleted from computation of ceiling limit. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Visakhapatnam has included the said extent of land in the holding of the respondents and directed them to surrender the said land treating it as surplus land against which the respondents 3 to 7 have filed an appeal before the appellate Authority who is the 1st respondent under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The 1st respondent passed the, impugned order holding that the lands which arc under lease to the Defence Authorities are governed by subsection (1)(ii) of Section 19 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Holding as above he has allowed the appeals and excluded the said land from the holding of the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition is filed by the Government.

(3.) The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Section 19(1)(ii) of the Act applies to any vacant laud held by any military, naval or air force institution. The expression 'to hold' has been defined under Section 2(1) of the Act according to which "to hold" with its grammatical variations, in relation to any vacant land, means - (i) to own such land; or (ii) to possess such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or under an irrevocable power of attorney or under hire-purchase agreement or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other capacity or capacities. Since the declarant, namely the respondents are the owners of the land and the Defence Department which is in occupation of the land is not the owner, though it is in possession of the land, the question of filing any declaration by the Defence docs not arise and therefore Section 19(1)(ii) is not applicable and the order of the first respondent is erroneous and inconsistent with Section 19(1) of the Act and he has misinterpreted the Act and therefore the order is liable to be set aside.