SHABBIR AHMED KHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Assignment.

(2.) The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac.1.38 guntas in Survey No.128/1 of Yousufguda Village, KhairathabadMandal, Hyderabad District and the petitioners' title to the said land was declared as against the original declarants/surplus land holders U.NarmadaDevi and others in O.S.No.74 of 1992 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which became final since the suit claim was admitted by the original declarants/defendants in that suit. Subsequently, the subject property was purchased by the petitioners from the original owners of the declarants in the year 1973 and subsequently, O.S.No.74 of 1992 was filed by the 1st petitioner herein on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad that the 1st petitioner be declared as owner and exclusive possessor of the property bearing No.128/1 admeasuring Ac.1.38 guntas situated at Yousufguda Village, KhairatabadMandal, Hyderabad District as per plaint plan and for permanent injunction. Further case of the petitioners is that since the land is surplus under the provisions of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (i)as per the declaration submitted by the original owners of declarants in the above suit, the petitioners have availed the benefit of regularization contained in G.O.Ms.No.455, dtd. 29/7/2002. Initially, the petitioners' applications were rejected by the 2nd respondent and hence, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16658 of 2005 and this Court was pleased to allow the said writ petition holding that the petitioners' applications under G.O.Ms.No.455, cannot be rejected by the 2nd respondent and that the 1st respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners' applications. The 1st respondent, however, vide impugned Memo No.31342/UC.IV/2004-5, dtd. 10/4/2007 rejected the petitioners' applications and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended as follows: