9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 1160 - SC - Indian LawsProceedings of the Competent Authority u/s 8, 9 and 10 of the ULC Act - Challenging the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 161, Revenue (UC-II) Department - HELD THAT - According to the appellants, they are entitled to the benefits of G.O. Ms. No. 733 dated 31.10.1988 and they are entitled to the same benefits as any other holder of excess vacant lands is entitled to as they are in actual physical possession even as on date irrespective of whether the Act became applicable on 17.02.1976 or 29.09.1980. It is brought to our notice that the amendment made in G.O. Ms. No. 217 vide G.O. Ms. No. 733 dated 31.10.1988 is applicable only in the cases in which the possession of land had been taken over by the Government under Section 10(5) and 10(6) and according to the State Government, in this case, possession was taken after 31.10.1988 as pointed out by learned senior counsel for the respondents, the declarants cannot avail the said benefit since even, according to them, they were not in possession as on 31.10.1988. The benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 733 may be available if the declarants were in possession and up to 31.10.1988 and possession was taken by the Government subsequent thereto. As rightly observed by the High Court, G.O. Ms. No. 217 cannot be interpreted as entitling the declarants to claim benefit of exemption even in cases where they were not in possession as on 31.10.1988. The same was handed over to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherlingampally, even prior to that, the said land was allotted to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority vide G.O. Ms. No. 5013 dated 19.12.1980. Admittedly, the said Government Order was not challenged by the appellants. In those circumstances, the appellants cannot be allowed to take the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 733 since this is not merely a case where the appellants were dispossessed but the property was transferred initially in favour of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and later to APIIC for utilizing the same to set up IT Park Project. We are satisfied that the appellants are not entitled to claim benefits under G.O. Ms. No. 733. It is also clear from G.O. Ms. No. 455 and 456 dated 29.07.2002 that occupation/possession is sine qua non for the allotment of surplus lands. Hence, We do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the appellants. Consequently, they are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act) to the land in Survey No. 83. 2. Validity of the proceedings under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the ULC Act. 3. Interpretation of the judgment in Audikesava Reddy's case. 4. Validity of G.O. Ms. No. 161 and connected proceedings. 5. Entitlement to exemptions under various Government Orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the ULC Act to the Land in Survey No. 83: The land in Survey No. 83 was initially agricultural, but the owners filed declarations under the ULC Act due to a mistaken belief that it applied. The land was not included in the Master Plan as of 17.02.1976, making the ULC Act inapplicable at that time. However, the Master Plan was amended on 23.06.1980 to include the land, necessitating a re-computation under the ULC Act. The Supreme Court, in Audikesava Reddy's case, held that the Master Plan prepared even after the enforcement of the ULC Act should be considered for determining whether a land is vacant. 2. Validity of the Proceedings under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the ULC Act: The appellants argued that the land was mainly used for agriculture and not included in the Master Plan as of 17.02.1976, thus not subject to the ULC Act. The Supreme Court in Audikesava Reddy's case clarified that the ULC Act applies based on the Master Plan in force, even if prepared after 17.02.1976. Therefore, the proceedings under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the ULC Act were valid as the land was included in the Master Plan by 29.09.1980. 3. Interpretation of the Judgment in Audikesava Reddy's Case: The main question was whether the proceedings of the Competent Authority under the ULC Act, declared void by the High Court, were restored by the Supreme Court's judgment in Audikesava Reddy's case. The Supreme Court held that the Master Plan prepared after the ULC Act's enforcement should be considered, thereby overruling the High Court's decision. The appeals were allowed, and the writ petitions were dismissed, meaning the proceedings under the ULC Act stood valid. 4. Validity of G.O. Ms. No. 161 and Connected Proceedings: G.O. Ms. No. 161, issued on 13.02.2006, allotted land to the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC). The appellants challenged this, but the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the proceedings under the ULC Act, thus validating G.O. Ms. No. 161 and the connected proceedings. 5. Entitlement to Exemptions under Various Government Orders: The appellants sought exemptions under G.O. Ms. No. 733 and other related orders. The Supreme Court observed that exemptions could only be granted if the declarants were in possession as of 31.10.1988, which was not the case here. The land was vested in the State, and the appellants were not entitled to exemptions as they were not in possession. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the proceedings under the ULC Act and the allotment of land to APIIC. The appellants were not entitled to exemptions under the cited Government Orders. The judgment in Audikesava Reddy's case was interpreted to mean that the proceedings under the ULC Act were valid, and the High Court's decision was set aside.
|
