Common Judgment:

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

1. Heard Sri D.Yathindra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1090, 1106 of 2014, 785 of 2015 & 1429 of 2016 Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1218 of 2014. Heard Sri K.Divya Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - M/s Clover Associates Private Ltd.

I. FACTS:

i) Case of the writ petitioners

2. The facts of the case are that one Mr.Addepalli Venkatappaya Sastry (in short ‘A.V.Sastry’) was the owner of the land in an extent of Acs.10-50 cents in Sy.No.1011 of Waltair ward, Visakhapatnam under the registered sale deed dated 07.05.1954 bearing document No.1387/54. He filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short ‘ULC Act’). Certain extent of land was declared as surplus. Claim of the writ petitioners 1 & 2 namely Pinnamraju Venkatapati Raju (in short P1) and Kasi Naga Kanaka Brahmam (in short P2) was that during the year 1983 Addepalli Venkatappaya Sastry sold extents of 2,752 sq.mts. to P1 and in the year 1987 he sold an extent of 2,879 sq.mts. to P2 and delivered the possession to those petitioners. P1 made constructions in the said land in the year 1986 and P2 thereafter.

3. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.455 Revenue (U.C.I) Department dated 29.07.2002 (in short ‘G.O.Ms.No.455’) under Section 23 of ULC Act for allotment or regularisation of land with or without construction in possession of the 3rd parties. Petitioners 1 & 2 applied for regularisation under G.O.Ms.NO.455. As per the condition No.4 (e)(ii), the excess land in possession of occupier (other than the excess land holder or his successors) on which there was already a structure and even though the possession was not supported by any registered document of purchase, allotment could be made if the same was supported by any one of the primary documents viz., (1) electricity connection, (2) construction permission, (3) payment of property tax and (4) water supply connection. The petitioners 1 & 2, relying on house tax receipts, municipal assessment number and pass books as on 1985 and 1987 to show their possession and existence of structures, sought for regularization. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.256 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 27.02.2006 (in short ‘G.O.Ms.No.256’) regularizing an extent of 2,752 sq.mts. in favour of petitioner No.1 and another G.O.Ms.No.424 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 06.04.2006 (in short ‘G.O.Ms.No.424’) regularizing an extent of 2,870 in favour of petitioner No.2.

4. Petitioner No.3 – M/s. Clover Associates (P) Ltd., a construction firm, entered into a registered possessory agreements of sale coupled with general power of attorney dated 08.05.2006 and 02.08.2006 with petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and also with the sons of the original land owner Addepalli Venkatappaya Sastry by paying consideration. Petitioner No.3 is said to have entered into similar agreement with one Sri Rama Co-operative Housing Building Society (in short ‘ Co-operative Society’), which was having land adjacent to the land of petitioner No.1, after obtaining the requisite permission from the civic bodies, and commenced construction activity. During the year, 2006 when the Municipal Authorities tried to demolish the structures existing in the land covered by G.O.Ms.No.256 and 424, the petitioner No.3 filed O.S.No.1524 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction, in which initially ad-interim temporary injunction was granted which was later on made absolute.

5. Later on, on the allegation that the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 produced fabricated tax receipts and pass books to claim regularization, the Government by memo No.59377/UC.I/2006-1 dated 23.03.2007 (in short ‘memo dated 23.03.2007’) kept the G.O.Ms.Nos.256 and 424 in abeyance with a direction to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam to conduct enquiry and submit a detailed report. Three reports were submitted. In the reports of the Special Officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling Visakhapatnam dated 04.07.2007 and Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, GVMC, Visakhapatnam dated 01.06.2007, it was reported that there were structures existing on ground. Whereas, in the report of the District Collector dated 25.03.2008, the land was reported to be vacant. The Government being of the view that some structures were existing, decided to collect highest slab rate and to allow the regularization. Accordingly G.O.Ms.No.493 dated 26.03.2008 (in short ‘G.O.Ms.No.493’) was issued and the Government memo dated 23.03.2007 was withdrawn. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Visakhapatnam and Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, GVMC, Visakhapatnam were directed to collect the differential amount from the petitioners. The said differential amount was paid by P3.

6. The unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 7 (in WA.No.1106/2014 arising out of W.P.No.23838 of 2011), filed W.P.No.9842 of 2008, challenging G.O.Ms.No.256 & 424, as also W.P.No.2771 of 2009 challenging G.O.Ms.No.493. Challenging G.O.Ms.No.493 and for consequential reliefs, another W.P.No.23315 (PIL) of 2009 was also filed by one N.Jayakumar Rao which was dismissed on 26.03.2010 mainly on the ground that the said petitioner failed to make out that any public interest was involved observing further that it was to meet the personal requirement of some private individuals. In W.P.Nos.9842 of 2008 and 2771 of 2009, initially interim direction was issued not to make further constructions but subsequently it was modified to the effect that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in W.A.No.1090 of 2014 (respondent Nos.7 & 8 in W.P.No.29014 of 2013) could utilise the land allotted under the G.Os., without encroaching upon the rights of the neighbouring lands and if any encroachment took place, it was left open to the petitioners of W.P.Nos.9842 of 2008 & 2771 of 2009, to file suit. These two Writ petitions were subsequently dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate remedies, vide order dated 06.12.2013.

7. On the allegations of committing irregularities in issuing NOC for allotment of Government surplus land in favour of the writ petitioner Nos.1 and 2, an enquiry was conducted against one P.Yerrayya, the then Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam. The same was dropped vide Government Memo No.19196/Vig.III(1)/2009-2 dated 19.08.2010. Against Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in W.A.No.1090 of 2014, also, on the allegations that they produced fabricated tax receipts to avail the benefit of regularization under G.O.Ms.No.455, the Government directed the District Collector to prosecute them for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. On the complaint of the Special Officer, ULC., FIR No.128 of 2011 dated 06.03.2011 was registered. The said respondents 1 & 2 challenged the same in Crl.P.No.3353/2011 which was allowed vide order dated 09.11.2011 and the proceedings in Crime No.128 of 2011 of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam City were quashed.

8. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 in W.A.No.1090 of 2014 (i.e., the writ petitioners of W.P.No.23838 of 2011) filed W.P.No.23838 of 2011 when the Government again proposed to keep G.O.Ms.Nos.256, 424 and 493 in abeyance and when the memo dated 20.09.2011 was issued keeping those GOs in abeyance, the writ petition No. 23838 of 2011 was amended to challenge the memo dated 20.09.2011. Vide interim order dated 11.10.2011 the memo dated 20.09.2011 was suspended pending further orders.

9. In the meantime vide proceedings dated 18.10.2011, the building permission dated 18.04.2009 which was granted to M/s Clover Associates Private Ltd., was cancelled. Writ Petition No.28783 of 2011 was filed by M/s. Clover Associates (P) Ltd., and one another, challenging the proceedings dated 18.10.2011. The District Collector of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, had also issued letter to stop construction and the water supply. Challenging the same, M/s Clover Associates Private Ltd., filed W.P.No.6529 of 2011. Both the W.P.Nos.28783 & 6529 of 2011 were allowed on 28.12.2011. Challenging the said judgment, W.A.No.1429 of 2016 & W.A.No.785 of 2015 respectively have been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh.

10. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.557 dated 05.09.2012 (in short ‘G.O.Ms.No.557’) appointing the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, as Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the allegations of production of fabricated tax receipts as also the issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.256, 424 & 493. As per G.O.Ms.No.557, the Government decided to enquire into the whole matter including the issues as per clauses (a) to (c) thereof as under:-

                  “10. In view of the position, Government have decided to appoint the Special Chief Secretary & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the whole matter. Accordingly, Government hereby appoint the Special Chief Secretary & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad to enquire in to the whole matter, including the following issues:

                  a) to enquire into the allotment / regularization of ceiling surplus land in favour of the applicants Sri P. Venkata Pathi Raju N.K. Brahmam and members of Sri Rama Co-Operative Housing Society based on the fake and fabricated documents submitted by them.

                  b) to enquire into issuance of G.Os for regularization.

                  c) to enquire into the role played by the Clover Associates Limited in obtaining withdrawal of abeyance orders issued in Mem.No.59377/ UC.I/ 06-1, dated 23.3.2007 by collecting highest slab rate, vide G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 26.3.2008.”

11. G.O.Ms.No.557 dated 05.09.2012 in full reads as under:

                  GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT

                  Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 – Visakhapatnam Urban Agglomeration – Allotment of excess land to an extent of 2,752 sq.mtrs and 2,870 sq.mtrs.,in Waltair ward under section 23(4) of the Act under occupation of 3rd parties i.e., Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju, S/o. P. Ramabhadra Raju and Sri K. Naga Kanaka Brahmam, S/o. Satya Rao respectively vide G.O.Ms.No.256, dt.27.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.424, dt.06.04.2006 – Allegation of submission of fake documents by the applicants – certain allegations - Assurance given by the Hon’ble Minister for Revenue to the Legislative Council to enquire in to the issue by a senior IAS Officer – Appointment of the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad as Enquiry Officer – Orders Issued.

                  REVENUE (UC.I) DEPARTMENT

                  G.O.Ms.No. 557. Dated:05. September, 2012.

                  Read the following:

                  1) G.O.Ms.No.256, Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 27.02.2006.

                  2) G.O.Ms.No.424, Revenue(UC.I) Department, dated 6.4.2006

                  3) G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue(UC.I) Department, dated 26.3.2008

                  4) Govt. Memo.No.4027 /UC.I/2011, dated 20.9.2011.

                  * * *

                  ORDER:

                  The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam has submitted proposals for allotment of surplus land to an extent 2752 sq.mtrs., and 2870 sq.mtrs., in T.S.No.1011/1A1A3B & T.S.No.1011/1A1A3C Part of Waltair ward, Visakhapatnam in favour of Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju and Sri K. Naga Kanaka Brahmam respectively under section 23(4) of UL(C&R) Act,1976 stating that dwelling houses with D.No.7-5-1/55/1 and 7-5-1/55/2 are existing in the land and recommended the proposals for regularization. Accordingly, Government have issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.256, Revenue (UC. I) Department, dt.27.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.424, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dt.06.04.2006 allotting theabove said land in favour of the two applicants.

                  2. Meanwhile, the Collector, Visakhapatnam in his report dt.19.12.2006, has stated that the allottees Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju and Sri K. Naga Kanaka Brahmam have obtained the allotment orders by producing fake documents and requested to rescind the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.424, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dt.06.04.2006 in favour of Sri K. Naga Kanaka Brahmam and accordingly, the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.424, Revenue (UC. I) Department, dt.06.04.2006 were kept in abeyance vide Govt.Memo.No.59377/UC. I/2006-1, dt.23.03.2007.

                  3. Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju and Sri K. Naga Kanaka Brahmam have filed representations before the then Hon’ble Minister (Rev.), and among other things, have stated that they are willing to pay highest slab rate. The request of the applicants was considered by the Government and decided to apply the highest slab rate in the year 2002 i.e., Rs.1,750/- per sq.mtrs., and accordingly, modification orders were issued fixing the highest slab rate vide G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue (UC. I) Department, dt.26.03.2008 and the abeyance orders issued vide Govt.Memo.No.59377/UC. I/2006-1, dt.23.03.2007, were withdrawn.

                  4. When the matter stood thus, the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad has conducted discreet enquiry and recommended for initiating departmental action against two private persons, Sri.K.Naga Kanaka Brahamam and Sri.P.Venkatapathi Raju who have submitted fake and fabricated house tax book and tax receipts to Sri P.Yerraiah formely Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam to grab valuable Government land and therefore to procecute the above two private persons in a court law u/s 420 IPC and 435,465 and 471 IPC after due verification besides taking action against Sri.P.Yerraiah, the then Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam.

                  5. The Government vide Memo.No.58904/Vig. III(1)/2010-1, dt.29.01.2011, directed the Collector, Visakhapatnam to initiate necessary measures for prosecuting the two persons viz., Sri K. Naga Kanaka Brahmam and Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju in a Court of Law u/s 420 IPC for submitting fake and fabricated house tax book and tax receipts. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered a case in Cr.No.128/2011, dt.06.03.2011 u/s 420 IPC, 465 IPC, 468 IPC and 471 IPC. The accused Sri K. Naga Kanaka Brahmam and Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju filed CRLP. MP.No.3550/2011 in CRLP.No.3353/2011 before the Hon’ble High Court against the criminal case No.128/11 registered against them and obtained interim stay orders dt.18.04.2011 against prosecution.

                  6. The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam in his letters dt.25.3.2011, dt.7.11.2011 and the District Collector, Visakhapatnam vide Letter dt.23.3.2011, requested the Government to pass necessary orders keeping in view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.5769/2011 dt.8.3.2011 filed by M/s Clover Associates Private Limited.

                  7. Accordingly, the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.256, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dt.27.02.2006, G.O. Ms. No.424 Revenue (UC.I) Department, dt.06.04.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue (UC. I) Department, dt.26.03.2008, were kept in abeyance vide Govt. Memo. No. 4027/UC.I/2011, dated. 20.09.2011.

                  8. Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju and two others have filed W.P.No.23838/2011 against the above said abeyance orders and the Hon’ble High Court in its interim Orders in W.P.M.P.No.33262/2011 in W.P.No.23828/2011 dated.11/10/2011 suspended the above orders issued vide Govt. Memo. No.4027/UC.I/2011, dated. 20.09.2011.

                  9. While the matter stood thus, Sri Balasani Lakshmi Narayana, Sri Nimmakayala China Rajappa and Sri Dadi Veerabhadra Rao, MLCs have given notice in LCQ No.5850 (Starred) regarding the illegal regularization of the above land and the action taken and to be taken thereon. During the discussion in the Council on 2.12.2011 during the question hour, the Hon’ble Minister for Revenue, Relief, Rehabilitation and Urban Land Ceiling has assured the House that a detailed enquiry will be held into the whole matter by appointing a senior IAS Officer.

                  10. In view of the position, Government have decided to appoint the Special Chief Secretary & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the whole matter. Accordingly, Government hereby appoint the Special Chief Secretary & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad to enquire in to the whole matter, including the following issues:

                  a) to enquire into the allotment / regularization of ceiling surplus land in favour of the applicants Sri P. Venkata Pathi Raju N.K. Brahmam and members of Sri Rama Co-Operative Housing Society based on the fake and fabricated documents submitted by them.

                  b) to enquire into issuance of G.Os for regularization.

                  c) to enquire into the role played by the Clover Associates Limited in obtaining withdrawal of abeyance orders issued in Mem.No.59377/ UC.I/ 06-1, dated 23.3.2007 by collecting highest slab rate, vide G.O.Ms.No.493, Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 26.3.2008.

                  11. The Enquiry Officer should complete the enquiry and submit the enquiry report within a month for taking further necessary action.

                  (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

                  ANIL CHANDRA PUNETHA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

                  To

                  The Special Chief Secretary & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad.

                  Copy to:

                  The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Hyderabad

                  The Collector & District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam PS to Principal Secretary, Revenue Department PS to Hon’ble Minister for Revenue.

                  SC/SF

                  //FORWARDED :: BY ORDER//

                  SECTION OFFICER

12. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration & Spl. Secretary vide proceedings in D.O.Lr.No.UC2/585/2012 dated 28.05.2013 wrote to the Government, inter-alia that no useful purpose would be served by enquiring into the allegations unless the G.O.Ms.Nos.256, 424 and 493 were cancelled and the possession was restored to the Government. He made request to take action so as to proceed further with the enquiry.

13. The letter dated 28.05.2013 reads as under:

                  D.O.Lr.No.UC2/585/2012 dated 28.05.2013.

                  Dear Sri Meenna,

                  Sub: Urban Land (C&R) Act, 1976 - Visakhapatnam Urban Agglomeration- Allotment of excess land to an extent of 2,752 Sq.mts and 2,870 Sq.Mts in Waltair u/s 23(4) of the Act in favour of Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju, Sri P.Ramabhadra Raju and Sri K.Nagakanakabrahmam in G.O.Ms.No.256 dated 27.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.424 dated:6.4.2006 - Allegation of submission of fake documents by the applicants - Appointment of the Spl.C.S & CCLA, A.P., Hyderabad as Enquiry Officer – cancellation of G.O.Ms.No. 424 dated:6.4.2006 - Reg. Ref: 1.G.O.Ms.No.256, Revenue (UCI) Dept. dated: 27.2.2006.

                  2. G.O.Ms.No.424, Rev.(UC.1) Dept. Dt:06.04.06

                  3. G.O.Ms.No.493, Rev. (UC.1) Dept. Dt:26.03.08

                  4. G.O.Ms.No.557, Rev. (UC.1) Dept. Dt:05.09.12.

                  * * *

                  The Government in the reference 4th cited has appointed the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad as Enquiry Officer to enquire into

                  1. to enquire into the allotment / regularization of ceiling surplus land in favour of the applicants P. Venkatapathi Raju, K. Nagakanaka Brahmam and members of Sri Rama co-operative housing society based on fake and fabricated documents submitted by them.

                  2. to enquire into the issuance of G.Os for regularization

                  3. to enquire into the role played by the Clovers Associate Limited in obtaining withdrawal of abeyance orders issued in Memo No.59377/UC1/06-1 dated: 23.3.2007 by collecting highest slab rate vide G.O Ms.No.493 Revenue UC.I Department dated 26.3.2008.

                  It is submitted that Sri P.Venkatapathi Raju & K.Naga Kanaka Brahmam submitted applications under G.O.Ms.No.455 and got regularization vide G.O.Ms.No.256, dt.27.2.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.424, dt.6.4.2006. The Govt. issued regularization orders in favour of Sri Rama Co-op Society vide G.O.Ms.No.398, dt.28.3.2006 relaxing the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.455 through G.O.Ms.No.350, dt.20.3.2006.

                  Based on the report of Commissioner, GVMC, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam requested the Government to rescind the G.O.Ms.No.424, dt.06.04.2006 issued on the fake documents. The Govt. vide Memo No.59377/UC.I/06-1, Revenue (UC.I) Dept., dt.23.03.2007 kept the G.O.Ms.No.424 Revenue (U.C.I) Department dated 06.04.2006 in abeyance until further orders.

                  The Govt. issued G.O.Ms.No.493, dt.26.3.2008 withdrawing the abeyance in respect of G.O.Ms.No.424, dt.6.4.2006 based on the fact that some structures are existing on the land which is evidenced by the SO & CA, ULC, VSP report dt.7/2007 and Commissioner, GVMC repot dt.1.6.2007 and ordered to collect the highest slab rate in G.O.Ms.No.455 ie., Rs. 1,750/- per Sq.Mtr.

                  Meanwhile, the SO, ULC, VSP has addressed to the Commissioner, Stamps & Registration Dept. not to register, Commissioner, GVMC to stop further construction, Superintending Engineer, Transco to disconnect power supply.

                  M/s Clover Associates filed W.P.No.5769/2011 & W.P.No.6806/2011 in which the Hon'ble High Court directed the SO, ULC, MRO & Collector, VSP to take action in accordance with Law and not to interfere with the construction.

                  M/s Clover Associates have filed W.P.No.11147/2011 & W.P.S.R.No.57625/2011 in which the Hon'ble High Court directed the Sub- Registrar - shall not decline to entertain any document evidencing the sale transactions of the petitioner for the purpose of registration. He shall entertain the same and deal with same in accordance with Law.

                  M/s Clover Associates have filed W.P.No.6529 & 28783/2011 in which the Hon’ble High Court passed orders that "So long as the Government orders in favour of the vendors of the petitioner, are in force and have not been revoked or cancelled, the respondents 2 (Commissioner, GVMC), & 3 (S.O.ULC, VSP) have no authority to issue the impugned proceedings. The second respondent has no power to revoke the building permission granted to the petitioner vide B.A.No.11056/08/ACP-II/G1 dated:18.4.2009. Since, the issuance of letter Rc.No.431/06/B1, dated:05.03.2011 by the third respondent (S.O.ULC, VSP) is illegal and arbitrary, any consequential proceedings issued by the second respondent in pursuance of the said proceedings of the third respondent, are liable to be set aside.

                  Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings. No costs". Allowed.

                  On the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.6529/2011, the SO, ULC, VSP has sought for the opinion of the G.P.Rev. (Assn.) A.P., Hyderabad. The G.P. has opined that no purpose would be served in filing the Writ Appeal against the Common Order delivered by the Han'ble Court dt.28-12- 2011:

                  The Govt. vide Memo No.4027/UC.I/2011, dated: 20-09-2011 kept G.Os 256, dt.27.2.2006, 424, dt.6.4.2006 & 493, dt.26.3.2008 in abeyance till further orders. Aggrieved by this, M/s Clover Associates filed W.P.No. 23838/2011.

                  The Hon'ble High Court has suspended the operation of Govt. Memo No.4027/UC.I/2011, dated: 20-09-2011 in W.P.M.P.No.33262/ 2011 and the main W.P.No.23838/2011 is pending.

                  Hence, it is very clear that the G.Os.256, 424,398 & 493 are in operation as on today. It is by now established that all these G.Os were obtained by fraud and fabrication of documents and hence the same is mentioned in the terms of reference of enquiry of CCLA as below.

                  1. to enquire into the allotment / regularization of ceiling surplus land in favour of the applicants P. Venkatapathi Raju, K. Nagakanaka Brahmam and members of Sri Rama co-operative housing society based on fake and fabricated documents submitted by them.

                  2. to enquire into the issuance of G.Os for regularization

                  3. to enquire into the role played by the Clovers Associate Limited in obtaining withdrawal of abeyance orders issued in Memo No.59377/UC1/06-1 dated: 23.3.2007 by collecting highest slab rate vide G.O Ms.No.493 Revenue UC.I Department dated 26.3.2008.

                  Since the enquiry itself is to allotments and regularization on fake and fabricated documents and also role played by Clover Associates Ltd in obtaining withdrawal of abeyance Memo through a G.O., it is imperative that first through a proper speaking order all the above G.Os. obtained by fraud and fabrication of documents are cancelled and then only enquiry can proceed as to who is responsible for the same and accordingly disciplinary and criminal action as required can be proposed after an enquiry.

                  No useful purpose would be served by this enquiry unless the above G.Os.256, 424, 398 & 493 are cancelled and the possession of land restored back to the Government.

                  I request you to take immediate action in this direction and inform to proceed further with the enquiry.

                  The following records of the Government received in this case are returned herewith. The receipt of the same may please be acknowledged.

                  1. C.No.59377/UCI (1)/06.

                  2. C.No.12233/UC1/03

                  3. C.No.56053/UC3(1)/05.

                  Yours sincerely,

                  (I.Y.R. KRISHNA RAO)

                  Sri B.R.Meena, I.A.S., Prl.Secretary to Govt. Revenue (UC) Department, A.P.Hyderabad.

14. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam issued notice dated 16.09.2013 to the writ petitioners to attend the enquiry. The notice reads as under:

                  Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad.

                  NOTICE

                  CCLA’s Ref.No.UC2/585/2012, dated 16.09.2013

                  Sub:- Urban Land (C&R) Act, 1976 – Visakhapatnam Urban Agglomeration

                  -Allotment of excess land to an extent of 2,752 Sq.mts and 2,870 Sq.mts in Waltair Ward U/s 23(4) of the Act under occupation of 3rd parties i.e Sri P.Venkatapathi Raju S/o P.Ramabhadra Raju and Sri K.Naga Kanaka Brahmam S/o Satya Rao respectively vide G.O.Ms.No.256, dt.27.2.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.424, dt. 6.4.2006 –

                  Allegation of submission of take documents by the applicants - Certain allegations - Assurance given by the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue to the Legislative Council to enquire into the issue by a Senior IAS Officer - Appointment of the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad as Enquiry Officer - Conduct of enquiry - Reg. Ref: 1.DGP, ACB, A.P., Hyderabad Lr. Rc. No.12/RE-WVP/2007-S11, dt.17.4.2009.

                  2. Govt. Memo No.58904/Vig. III (1)/2010-1, dt.29.1.2011.

                  3. G.O.Ms.No.557 Rev. (UC.I) Dept. dt.5.9.2012.

                  4. CCLA's Ref.No.UC2/585/2012, dt.4.9.2013.

                  @@@

                  It is to inform that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.557 Rev. (UC.1) Dept. dt.5.9.2012 have appointed the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad & Spl. Chief Secretary to Government to enquire in to the whole matter including the following issues.

                  a) To enquire in to the allotment/regularization of ceiling surplus land in favour of the applicant Sri P. Venkata Pathi Raju, N.K.Brahmam and members of Sri Rama Co-op Housing Society based on the fake and fabricated documents submitted by them.

                  b) To enquire in to issuance of G.Os. for regularization.

                  c) To enquire into the role played by the Clover Associates Ltd in obtaining withdrawal of abeyance orders issued in Memo No.59377/UC.I/06-1, dt: 23.3.2007 by collecting highest slab rate, vide G.O.Ms. No. 493, Rev.(UC.I) Dept. dt. 26.3.2008.

                  Hence, the individuals shown at the address entry are requested to attend the final enquiry before the Enquiry Officer i.e the Spl.CS & CCLA on 27.9.2013 at 11.30 AM in the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad along with documentary evidence, if any, with them.

                  If any individual fails to attend the enquiry, further action will be taken based on the material available on record.

                  To

                  Sri Vemulapalli Koteswara Rao, 10-50-5/8, G-5,

                  Sunny side Homes, Opp. Appollo Hospitals, Waltair Main Roads,

                  Visakhapatnam – 530002. Phone:9848193123

                  //Attested//

                  Sd/-Smt:Parvathi Subramanian, For Chief Commissioner

                  Assistant Secretary (UC)

15. Challenging the G.O.Ms.No.557, the letter dated 28.05.2013 and the notice dated 16.09.2013, W.P.No.29014 of 2013 was filed by the writ petitioners.

ii) Case of the State/Writ Appellants:

16. The State filed the counter affidavit in the writ petition. Their stand was that Addepalli Venkatappaya Sastry filed statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act and in C.C.No.7119 of 1976. After enquiry, the competent authority determined the surplus land (vacant land) to an extent of Ac.0.9713 sq.mts. which vested in the State Government by publication in the official gazette and it was handed over to the Mandal Revenue Officer (Urban) on 27.07.1992 for safe custody. The writ petitioners got regularisation of the land said to have been purchased by them from Addepalli Venkatappaya Sastry by producing fabricated tax receipts. G.O.Ms.Nos.256 & 424 were kept in abeyance. But, subsequently abeyance orders were withdrawn deciding to collect higher slab rate existing as on the date of G.O.Ms.No.455, though there was no provision of collecting the higher slab rate for any structure either temporary or permanent having no primary documents as per the guidelines issued for regularisation vide G.O.Ms.No.455. However, the writ petitioner Nos.1 & 2 were permitted to pay the differential amount which was paid by petitioner No.3, which amounted to benami transaction prohibited under law.

17. In W.P.No.29014 of 2013, the respondent No.2, the Chief Commissioner of Land Acquisition filed counter affidavit. It was inter-alia submitted that the enquiry was conducted from 16.09.2013 and also concluded on 03.10.2013, after giving adequate opportunity to all the parties. However, the Enquiry report could not be submitted to the Government in view of the interim orders passed on 07.10.2013. It was further submitted that the enquiry was directed in response to LCQ.No.5850 raised by public representatives in the House of Legislative Council and in the public interest to draw out the truths and irregularities if any, during the process of issuance of the regularization G.Os in favour of the writ petitioners. It was also submitted that after the submission of the report, the Government had to take an appropriate decision and at that stage it was neither just or reasonable to stall the process of enquiry.

18. In the counter affidavit in para-18 it was submitted that the respondent No.2 issued notices to make enquiry as ordered by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.557. Notices were issued to 18 individuals including writ petitioners to attend the enquiry fixed on dates, 16.09.2013, 27.09.2013 and was completed on 03.10.2013. The writ petitioners had submitted their representations along with the enclosures by post.

19. Para Nos.18 & 19 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 in W.P.No.2904 of 2016 read as under:

                  18. It is to submit that it is true that the 2nd respondent issued notices to the petitioners as a part of enquiry as ordered by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.557 Rev.(UC.I) Dept. dt.5.9.2012. The 2nd respondent has given adequate opportunity to the petitioners to appraise their case before the Enquiry Officer. As the part of enquiry, notices were issued to (18) individuals including present writ petitioners to attend the enquiry fixed on 16.9.2013, 27.9.2013. Final hearing was taken up and completed on 3.10.2013.

                  Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju & Sri V. Koteswara Rao, present Writ Petitioners have submitted their representations along with enclosures by post which was received on 16.09.2013 for examination and requested to grant (30) days of time to attend the enquiry as one Sri P. Venkatapati Raju is unable to attend the enquiry on 16.9.2013 due to Samikyandhra Bandh and Sri V. Koteswara Rao is unable to attend the enquiry as he is going to Russia on 12.09.2013 for ten days. Accordingly, the enquiry was adjourned to 27.09.2013. Again Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju and Sri G.V. Ramana represented on behalf of Sri V. Koteswara Rao sent representations through post dated 26.09.2013 received on 27.09.2013 stating that they are unable to attend the enquiry on 27.09.2013. Again the case was adjourned and posted to 03.10.2013 and final Notice to attend the enquiry on 03.10.2013 were issued. They attended the enquiry on 03.10.2013 and submitted a petition seeking (30) days time to obtain documents pertaining to Revenue, GVMC and other Governmental Agencies in support of their claim which were very much available in the record of enquiry.

                  19. It is submitted that Sri P. Venkatapathi Raju and Sri V. Koteswara Rao Writ Petitioners have already submitted material papers vide their representation dt. 12.9.2013 received in the office on 16.9.2013, the original records of the Government and SO, ULC, VSP contain the original reports of the Revenue, GVMC, and Government and all material papers are available on record. They only sought time to postpone the enquiry on one pretext or another. Hence their request for further extension of time was not considered and the case was taken up for enquiry and concluded on 03.10.2013 on the basis of their written submissions and material available on record. Thus, after giving adequate opportunity, the enquiry was completed on 03.10.2013.

iii) Common Judgment in Writ Petitions:

20. Both the W.P.Nos.23838 of 2011 and 29014 of 2013 were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide common judgment dated 21.03.2014.

21. Challenging the judgment dated 21.03.2014 in W.P.No.23838 of 2011, the State has filed W.A.No.1106 of 2014 and the respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.P.No.23838 of 2011 have filed W.A.No.1218 of 2014.

22. Challenging the common judgment dated 21.03.2014 in W.P.No.29014 of 2013, the State has filed W.A.No.1090 of 2014.

23. As stated above challenging the judgment in W.P.No.28783 of 2011 State filed W.A.No.1429 of 2014 and challenging the judgment in W.P.No.6529 of 2011 the State filed W.A.No.785 of 2014.

24. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition Nos.23838 of 2011 and 29014 of 2013 vide common judgment dated 21.03.2024. It was held that the regularisation were made pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.455. The G.O.Ms.No.256 & 424 of regularisation were kept in abeyance but by levying higher slab rate, which was paid, the order of abeyance was withdrawn. The public interest litigation W.P.No.23315 of 2009 questioning the withdrawal was also dismissed. So, there was no force in the stand of the present appellants.

25. The contention as raised by the learned Special Government Pleader in the writ petitions that, the G.O.Ms.No.493 dated 26.03.2008 issued in the exercise of the powers under Section 23 of ULC Act, did not permit the regularisation in favour of the single individual but permitted regularisation only in favour of any industry or for providing residential accommodation to the employees of the industry, was held unsustainable by the learned Single Judge. To the criminal proceedings against the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 for producing alleged fabricated tax receipts to claim regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.455, it was observed that those were also quashed, which order attained finality. To initiate the investigation, again on the same allegation the learned Single Judge found un-justified. The learned Single Judge further recorded that in view of the contents of the letter dated 28.05.2013 by the Enquiry Officer, he had prejudged the issue and so any enquiry would be an empty formality because the Enquiry Officer had already made up his mind and so, there would be violation of the principles of natural justice, referring to the case of SIEMENS Ltd., v. Sate of Maharastra((2006) 12 SCC 33).

II. Submissions of learned Special Government Pleader:

26. Learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the Writ Court cannot be sustained. He submitted that the criminal case against the petitioners or/and against the Special Officer were  quashed but on that ground initiation of the proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.557 to hold enquiry with respect to the regularisation of land matter, could not be unsustainable. He submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.455 did not permit regularisation in favour of single individual. The G.O.Ms.No.455 was issued under Section 23 of the ULC Act but the learned Single Judge did not properly appreciate that fact and the legal position under Section 23 of the ULC Act. The regularisation in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 could not be legally sustained. The petitioners had submitted forged tax receipts. They got regularisation, though they were not entitled for the surplus (vacant) land declared under ULC Act. The payment of higher slab rate for regularisation was not permissible and the payment thereof could not be the ground for regularization.

27. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that challenging the internal communication, the writ petition was not maintainable. With respect to the prejudging of the issue, he submitted that there was no such prejudgment by the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry officer appointed by G.O.Ms.No.557 made such observation only considering the judgment/order passed in different writ petition(s) by that time, but based thereon it could not be directed, ‘not to hold enquiry’. If so required, the Enquiry Officer could be directed to be changed.

Submissions of learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners:

28. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that there was no challenge to G.O.Ms.Nos.256 & 424 by which the direction was given to collect the higher slab rate existing on the date of G.O.Ms.No.455. The direction to pay higher slab rate was complied and the GO keeping in abeyance, the regularisation G.O.(s), was withdrawn. So the matter could not be reopened for enquiry. He submitted that the enquiry officer had prejudged the issue. So, any fair and impartial enquiry could not be conducted. The enquiry would be vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners supported the judgment of the Writ Court and requested to dismiss the Writ Appeal (s).

III. Point for consideration:

29. The point for consideration is:

                  “Whether the impugned common orders dated 21.03.2014 and 28.12.2011 are legally sustainable or call for interference?”

IV. Consideration:

30. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.

31. In W.A.Nos.1106 of 2014, 1218 of 2014 arising out of writ petition No.23838 of 2011 and in W.A.No.1090 of 2014 arising out of W.P.No.29014 of 2013, the common judgment dated 21.03.2014 is under challenge.

32. In W.A.Nos.1429 of 2016 arising out of W.P.No.28783 of 2011 and W.A.No.785 of 2015 arising out of W.P.No.6529 of 2011, the common judgment dated 28.12.2011 is under challenge.

33. However, both the judgments passed in different writ petitions as aforesaid, are almost on common facts and the main basis is same that, the G.O.Ms.No.256, 424 & 493 stands. So, the order impugned in W.P.Nos.28783 & 6529 of 2011 in which the cancellation of building permission and stoppage of construction and water supply was challenged, were not justified. Consequently, all the writ appeals are being considered and decided by the common judgment. The fate of W.A.No.1429 of 2016 and W.A.No.785 of 2015 would be dependant on the fate of W.A.Nos.1106 of 2014, 1218 of 2014 and 1090 of 2014.

34. Vide G.O.Ms.Nos.256 & 424 the regularization was done of the surplus (vacant) land declared under the ULC Act which vested in the Government, in favour of the writ petitioners. On the allegation that they produced fake documents, and the report of the Collector of Visakhapatnam dated 10.09.2006 that they obtained allotment orders by producing fake documents, the G.O.Ms.Nos. 256 & 424 were kept in abeyance vide Govt.Memo.No. 59377/UC.I/2006-1, dated 23.03.2007, but later on, on the request of the petitioners to pay the higher slab rate, G.O.Ms.No.493, was issued withdrawing the Government Memo dated 23.03.2007. However, this G.O.Ms.No.493 does not reflect on the entitlement, or eligibility of the writ petitioners for regularization in their favour under G.O.Ms.No.455, which was issued under Section 23 of the ULC Act. Learned Special Government Pleader had submitted that the writ petitioners did not fall for regularization and so the enquiry was ordered vide G.O.Ms.No.557 inter-alia in issuance of regularization G.O.Ms.Nos.256 & 424 i.e., as to how those G.Os., were issued. On that aspect, nothing was mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.493 and merely on payment of higher slab rate the regularization G.Os, were restored. He submitted that the payment of higher slab rate could not be the basis for regularization of Government land in favour of the writ petitioners. In fact, such has nothing to do with the regularisation in the absence of entitlement for regularisation. We find that such submissions are not without force.

35. Section 23 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 which provides for disposal of vacant land acquired under the Act, reads as under:

                  “23. Disposal of vacant land acquired under the Act -

                  (1) It shall be competent for the State Government to allot, by order, in excess of the ceiling limit any vacant land which is deemed to have been acquired by the State Government under this Act or is acquired by the State Government under any other law, to any person for any purpose relating to, or in connection with, any industry or for providing residential accommodation of such type as may be approved by the State Government to the employees of any industry and it shall be lawful for such person to hold such land in excess of the ceiling limit.

                  Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,-

                  (a) where any land with a building has been acquired by the State Government under any other law and such building has been subsequently demolished by the State Government, then, such land shall be deemed to be vacant land acquired under such other law;

                  (b) "industry" means any business, profession, trade, undertaking or manufacture.

                  (2) In making an order of allotment under sub-section (1), the State Government may impose such conditions as may be specified therein including a condition as to the period within which the industry shall be put in operation or, as the case may be, the residential accommodation shall be provided for:

                  Provided that if, on a representation made in this behalf by the allottee, the State Government is satisfied that the allottee could not put the industry in operation, or provide the residential accommodation, within the period specified in the order of allotment, for any good and sufficient reason, the State Government may extend such period to such further period or periods as it may deem fit.

                  (3) Where any condition imposed in an order of allotment is not complied with by the allottee , the State Government shall, after giving an opportunity to the allottee to be heard in the matter, cancel the allotment with effect from the date of the non-compliance of such condition and the land allotted shall revest in the State Government free from all encumbrances.

                  (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), all vacant lands deemed to have been acquired by the State Government under this Act shall be disposed of by the State Government to subserve the common good on such terms and conditions as the State Government may deem fit to impose.

                  (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) to (4), where the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary to retain or reserve any vacant land, deemed to have been acquired by that Government under this Act, for the benefit of the public, it shall be competent for the State Government to retain or reserve such land for the same.”

36. As per Section 23(1), it shall be competent for the State Government to allot, by order, in excess of the ceiling limit any vacant land which is deemed to have been acquired by the State Government under the ULC Act, 1976 or has been acquired by the State Government under any other law, to any person for any purpose relating to, or in connection with, any industry or for providing residential accommodation of such type as may be approved by the State Government to the employees of any industry and it shall be lawful for such person to hold such land in excess of the ceiling limit. On a plain reading of Section 23(1), the allotment made there under refers to allotment of vacant land in favour of the person whose land has been declared vacant i.e., in excess of ceiling limit. Such a person can be allotted vacant land, in excess of the ceiling limit, but only for the purpose as specified in sub-Section (1).

37. Section 23 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 under sub-Section (1) therefore acknowledges for the allotment of the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and deemed to have been acquired by the State Government, which may be allotted to such person, whose land is declared as vacant for the purpose relating to, or in connection with, any industry or for providing residential accommodation of such type as may be approved by the State Government, to the employees of any industry and it shall be lawful for such person to hold such land in excess of the ceiling limit, if the same has been allotted by the State Government to that person for the purposes under sub-Section (1).

38. As per Section 23(4), subject to the provisions of sub sections (1), (2) & (3), vacant lands deemed to have been acquired by the State Government under the ULC Act shall be disposed of by the State Government to subserve the ‘common good’ on such terms and conditions as the State Government may deem fit to impose. The provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), relate to allotment of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit to that person whose land has been declared surplus. So, where sub sections (1) (2)& (3) did not apply and allotment has not been made in favour of the person whose ceiling limit is fixed the land in excess of the ceiling limit, i.e., the vacant land vested in the state that land can also be disposed of by the State Government under sub section (4) for common good on such terms and conditions as the State Government may deem it fit to impose.

39. In exercise of the powers under Section 23, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.455, which reads as under:

                  GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT

                  Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 - Allotment of excess lands U/s 23 of the Act which are already under occupation of 3rd parties - Policy guidelines – Issued.

                  REVENUE (U.C.I) DEPARTMENT

                  G.O. Ms. No.455 Dated:29-7-2002.

                  Read the following:

                  1. G.O.Ms.No. 840, Revenue (UC.II) Department, Dated: 16.6.1982.

                  2. Judgment of High Court of A.P. in W.P.No. 19344/1995 and batch, dated: 3.2.1997.

                  ORDER:

                  Orders were issued in the G.O. 1st read above creating a centralised pool of excess vacant lands taken over by Government under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and indicating the priorities for allotting such excess vacant lands, after meeting the needs of the Government Departments.

                  2. It has come to the notice of Government that the excess land holders themselves or their successors or other interested persons have been questioning the determination of excess land, on various grounds resulting in continuous litigation even for decades. There have also been several instances of such persons protracting the litigation by filing Appeals/W.Ps etc. on one ground or the other and obtaining stay orders. Taking advantage of such long drawn litigations, in many cases the excess land holders have resorted to sell the excess land to 3rd parties by executing a variety of documents and entering into transactions unknown to the law or illegal under the law. While doing so, the fact that such land has been declared surplus already or is the subject matter of pending proceedings before the statutory authorities under the Act or before the Courts of Law in respect of the such lands has been concealed by the excess landholders or their successors. Many persons, driven by the need for a plot of land and to have a shelter of their own, have innocently purchased such excess lands through registered or unregistered documents and also built houses with or without the requisite permissions. Such sales are null and void in terms of the provisions of section 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act. When the authorities attempt to take possession of the excess land after conclusion of all long drawn litigations, it is noticed in many cases that the excess land on ground is already occupied and covered by structures. Fresh problems have arisen.

                  3. When possession of excess land was taken physically, either with structures or by demolishing structures raised thereon, a fresh round of litigation commenced.The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dealt with these aspects in detail in its orders 2nd read above and gave certain directions.

                  4. The Government while keeping in view the observations of High Court and after careful consideration of the issue of occupation of excess land by third parties (i.e., other than the declarants/excess land holders or their successors) and taking into account all ground realities and the practical aspects of the problems and the difficulties encountered in the strict enforcement of the law and bearing in mind the fact that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act,1976 is an expropriatory law, have, as a matter of policy, decided to allot the excess lands to such respective third parties in occupation U/s.23 of the Act, subject to the following conditions:

                  (a) i) The allotment shall be considered where the excess land already vested with Government U/s 10(3) of the Act free from all encumbrances and the excess lands that may so vest with them in future.

                  ii) In cases where the lands applied for allotment are not covered by any declaration filed, the competent authority shall get the statements filed, if so required under the Act by issuing notices under section 6(2), and then take further action to determine surplus or otherwise. In case of declaring surplus, further action shall be taken upto the stage of vesting of surplus land in Government U/s 10(3) and only thereafter applications received for allotment in respect of such surplus lands shall be dealt with in accordance with these orders.

                  (b) The allotment shall be subject to withdrawal of all litigations filed either by the occupant of excess land, or the excess and holder, or any other interested person and pending before any Court or Authority relating to the excess land as on the date of this G.O.

                  (c) The excess lands covered by Appeals/W.Ps/W.As/ SLPs or any other suit or proceedings including land grab cases filed by Government and pending before any Court or Authority shall be considered for allotment if applied for under these orders only after such cases are finally disposed of by such Court or Authority, and the Government or other party deciding not to carry such order in further appeal or the Government deciding to withdraw litigations in any case.

                  (d) The allotment shall be subject to payment of amount to Government at the rates indicated separately for each agglomeration in Schedule - I to this order.

                  (e) Allotment under these orders shall be confined to;

                  (i) Excess land in the possession of occupier, (other than the excess land holder or his successors) where such possession is evidenced by a registered document of purchase from the excess land holder or person claiming through him/her regardless of the fact of such land being covered by a structure or not.

                  (ii) Excess land in the possession of occupier, (other than the excess land holder or his successors) on which there is already a structure, though the possession is not supported by any registered document of purchase. "Structure" for the purpose of this G.O. shall include any construction which is constructed with walls and covered with a roof of RCC/Titles/A.C.Sheets/Zinc Sheets or tubular structure but does not include a hut or a shed without walls. In Guntur and Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam agglomerations structures with walls and covered with roof of palmyhra leaves traditionally may be considered as structure.

                  (f) In cases covered by clause (e) (i) above, the year of registered document based on which the occupant/applicant came into possession shall be considered for determining the time periods of possession and then for calculating the amount payable as per the rates indicated in Schedule- I to this order;

                  (g) In cases covered by clause (e) (ii) above, the year of coming into possession shall be the earliest of the years with reference to the dates of any or all of the following primary documents (From Sl.No.1 to 4) pertaining to the structure existing on the excess land and for determining the time periods of possession and then to calculate the amount payable with reference to the rates indicated in schedule-l to this order. The documents at S1.No.5 & 6 below are to be considered as supporting documents alone filing of which is optional. Filing of one of these documents has to be necessarily supported with one of the documents at S1.No.1 to 4 below.

                  PRIMARY DOCUMENTS:

                  (1) Electricity connection

                  (2) Construction permission

                  (3) Payment of property tax

                  (4) Water supply connection

                  SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:

                  (5) Household supply card

                  (6) Telephone connection.

                  (h) Allotment of vacant surplus land not covered by any registered document of purchase shall not be considered under these orders.

                  (i) The registered transactions of purchase of excess lands that took place prior to the date of this G.O. alone will be considered for allotment under these orders.

                  (j) These orders apply for allotment of surplus land occupied by 3rd parties (other than land holder/declarant his successors in interest) alone. Orders regarding exemption of surplus lands occupied by the surplus land holder/declarant or his successors in interest are being issued separately.

                  (k) Allotment shall be free of cost up to the limits indicated in the table below, in case the occupier thereof is a person below poverty line, as explained below: