Common Order

1. Since the lis and subject property involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, these writ have been taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by way of common order.

2. These Writ Petitions are filed seeking a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the Intimation of refusal No.53/P6/2025/Refusal Order No.1/2025 and No.54/P7/2025/Refusal Order No.2/2025, dated 04.02.2025 respectively under the guise of Urban Land Ceiling clearance as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and sought a direction to the respondent No.4 to receive, register and release the documents in respect of Northern and Southern Portions of residential Plot No.133, vide Municipal No.3-13-142/2/133/A (PTIN No.101512437) in Sy.N.95, admeasuring to an extent of 133.5 Sq.yards each, out of total land of 267.82 Sq.Yards, situated at Chanikyapuri Colony, Mallapur Village, Kapra Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad.

3. Heard Sri Damodar Mundra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and Mr.Habeebuddin, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally one Mr. Mohammed Vaziruddin purchased the residential plot No.133, vide Municipal No.3-13-142/2/133/A (PTIN No.101052437), admeasuring to an extent of 267.82 Sq.Yards, situated in Sy.No.95, situated at Chanikyapuri Colony, Mallapur Village, Kapra Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’) vide registered document No.5384/1990 dated 15.06.1990 from one Mr.Md.Rahaman Ali and thereafter the name of Mohammed Vaziruddin was also mutated in the Municipal records. The said Mohammed Vaziruddin died on 27.10.2016 and his wife Haleem Unnisa also died on 06.05.2021. Consequent on death of Vaziruddin and Haleem Unnisa, their legal heirs got the property divided into two shares and intended to sell the subject property through a registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and accordingly sale deeds were presented on 01.02.2025 before the respondent No.4 for registration duly paying required registration fee and the said documents were received as document Nos.P6/2025 and P7/2025 respectively and the respondent No.4 sent intimation of impugned refusal letters dated 04.02.2025 to the petitioners on the ground that the subject property is under Urban Land Ceiling (for brevity ‘ULC’). In the said refusal orders, it was stated that Mr.Rahaman Ali was declared as excess property under the Land Ceiling Act vide File No.F2/213/1982, from whom the vendors of the petitioners purchased the subject property,

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that upon receipt of refusal orders, the petitioners approached the respondent No.4, who informed that until and unless ULC clearance certificate is produced from the Revenue Department they are not going to register the documents. The petitioners have also informed to the respondent No.4 that the subject property was also regularized under Land Regularization Scheme vide G.O.Ms.No.902, M.A, dated 31.12.2007 in terms of Rule-6 of A.P.Regularization of unapproved, illegal layout Rules, 2008 framed therein. Further the neighbouring owners of the subject property already got the Sale Deeds registered from the respondent No.4 and even GHMC has also granted permission for constructions of building in the area, as such the question of ULC clearance does not arise. The other plots situated in survey No.95 were registered by the respondent No.4 till date, but surprisingly, the respondent No.4 refused to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioners on the ground of ULC proceedings and the said action of the respondent No.4 in refusing to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioners is totally illegal and arbitrary.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, the Land Ceiling Act was repealed way-back in the year, 2008 and the Vendors of the petitioners is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and got assessed before the Municipal Corporation and paying tax regularly. The respondent No.4 has registered several plots in respect of the very same survey No.95, however, refused to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioners.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that on one hand the respondent No.4 is continuously registering the other plots situated in Sy.No.95 from 1985 to 2025, on the other hand he is refusing to register the subject plots in the very same Sy.No.95 as per his whims and fancies and prayed the Court to allow both the writ petitions by directing the respondent No.4 to receive, register and release the documents presented by the petitioners, without reference to the refusal orders.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions placed reliance on the following Judgment:

               1. The Sub-Registrar, Shameerpet Vs. K.Ramakrishna Raju (Division Bench Judgment of this in Court in WA No.707 of 2002, Dated 21.07.2004)

               2. A.P. Electical Equipment Corporation Vs., Tahsildar and others (2025 SCC Online SCC 447)

9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.4 would submit that as seen from the list of prohibited property land in survey No.95 of Mallapur Village to an extent of 51,799.76 Sq.Meters is shown as ULC property vide File No.F2/213/82 and the said ULC property belonging to one Mohd.Rahaman Ali, from whom the ancestors of the Vendors of the petitioners purchased the subject property vide document No.5384/1990 on the file of SRO, Uppal.

10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the parties to the documents in question failed to produce any document to show that the schedule property is not prohibitory or ULC property and also failed to produce any document with regard to regularization of the subject property and also failed to produce permissions if any granted by the Municipal authorities. In view of the same, the respondent No. 4 refused to registered the documents presented by the petitioners.

11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that at the time of presentation of the documents, the parties to the document in question failed to produce any material documents and the respondent No.4 refused to register the documents presented by the petitioners.

12. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.5 would submit that one Mr.Mohd Rahaman Ali has filed statement in Form No.I under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity ‘the ULC Act’) individually vide CC No.F2/213/82, wherein the said Rahaman Ali declared certain landed properties as excess lands, among which the land to an extent of Ac.12.32 Guntas situated in Sy.No.95 of Mallapur, was declared as excess lands, in which the subject property is situated. Subsequently, Notifications under Sections 8(1) and 8(3) of the ULC Act were issued vide File No.F2/213/82 dated 12.08.1994 and final orders issued under Section 9(4) of the ULC Act and final Statement under Secton 9 of the ULC Act was reissued on 19.10.1994 duly determining the surplus lands i.e. an 51799.75 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.95 vide file No.F2/213/1982. Further, a Notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was also issued in Extraordinary A.P.Gazette on 12.01.1995 and declaration under Secton 10(3) of ULC Act was issued on 27.06.1995 and got published in Extraordinary A.P.Gazette on 13.07.1995. Since the declarant failed to surrender the said land within the stipulated period, Order under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued on 27.10.1995 authorizing the Enquiry Oficer to take over possession of the surplus land and there are no merits and requested to dismiss both the writ petitions.

13. After hearing both sides and upon perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners purchased the suit schedule property and presented documents for registration on 01.02.2025 in respect of their respective shares before the respondent No.4 and he has given document numbers as P.6/2025 and P7/2025 respectively. Thereafter, both the documents were refused through impugned intimations of refusal on 04.02.2025 on the ground that the suit schedule property falls under ULC and the petitioners failed to produce the supporting proceedings for NOC issued by the ULC/Revenue authorities and also failed to produce evidence as to whether permissions obtained from the Municipal authorities in respect of the constructions of the schedule property figuring in the documents.

14. The contention of the petitioners is that the ancestors of Vendors of the petitioners purchased the schedule property from one Md.Rahaman Ali through registered document No.5384/1990 dated 15.06.1990. After death of ancestors of the Vendors of the petitioners, their legal heirs divided the subject property into two shares and intended to sell the same to the petitioners herein and when the petitioners presented the sale deeds, the respondent No.4 refused to register the same through impugned orders.

15. In view of the grounds mentioned in the impugned refusal orders, this Court directed the petitioners to implead the ULC authorities and accordingly impleaded the respondent No.5 in both the writ petitions.

16. The contention of the petitioners is that ancestor of the Vendors of the petitioners purchased the property in the year, 1990 and obtained permissions from the Municipal authorities and also constructed buildings thereon with Municipal Door No.142/2/133/A (PITIN No.1010512437).

17. The contentions of the respondents are that the property to an extent of 51799.76 Sq.Meters situated in Sy.Nos.95 was shown as ULC property vide File No.F2/213/82 and the said ULC property belongs to Md.Rahaman Ali, from whom the ancestors of the Vendors of the petitioners purchased the schedule property. The contention of the ULC Department is that after following the procedure, the subject property was got published in the A.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) No.22, dated 13.07.1995. Since the declarants failed to surrender the surplus land within the stipulated time, the competent authority issued orders on 27.10.1995 authorizing the Enquiry Officer to take over possession of the surplus land under Section 10(6) of the Act and thereafter by conducing panchanama and taken over possession of the subject land and in view of the same the subject property belongs to the Government and therefore the registering authorities refused to register the documents presented by the petitioners.

18. The Sections 10 (3) (5) and (6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, reads as follows:

               (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to, in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.

               (5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.

               (6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Explanation.-In this section, in sub-section (1) of section 11 and in sections 14 and 23, "State Government", in relation to-

               (a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government, means the Central Government;

               (b) any vacant land owned by any State Government and situated in a Union territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, 2 of 1924. means that State Government.

19. In the instant case, as on the date of Notification under Section 10(5) of the Act, the ancestors of the vendors of the petitioners are in possession of the subject property. As per the documents filed by the respondent No.5 along with the counter it shows that the respondent authorities have issued notices dated 26.08.1995 to Mohd.Rahaman Ali, at that point of time he sold the property to the ancestors of the Vendors of the petitioners. Without issuing notice to the ancestors of the Vendors of the petitioners, who were in possession of the subject property, the respondent authorities have conducted paper panchanama.

20. With regard to the issue of paper panchanama, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation (supra 2).

               The relevant portion of the said Judgment is extracted as under:

               “24. This Court in the case of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana SugarMill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111, in the context of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 held thus:—

               “The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property must be strictly construed. It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof”.

               25. Thus, applying the principle of strict construction as explained in the aforesaid two decisions, the authorities are required to act strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions. Thus, when sub-section (5) of Section 10 mandates giving notice of an order under the said subsection to the person in possession, the same is required to be complied with in its true letter and spirit. Considering the nature of rights involved, mere issuance of notice without service thereof, cannot be said to be due compliance with the provisions of the statute. Besides, the provisions of subsection (6) of Section 10 can be resorted to only if the person fails to comply with an order under sub- section (5) thereof, within a period of thirty days of service of notice. Hence, possession cannot be taken over under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976unless a period of thirty days from the date of service of notice has elapsed. In absence of service of notice under sub-section (5) of Section 10, there will be no starting point for calculating the period of thirty days. In other words, time will not start running, hence the question of taking over possession under sub-section (6) of Section 10of the Act, 1976 will not arise at all. In this view of the matter, in the case on hand, it was not open to the respondent authorities to resort to the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 without first strictly complying with the provisions of sub- section (5) thereof. Hence, such action being in contravention of the statutory provisions cannot be sustained and deserves to be struck down.

               xxxx

               39. The mere vesting of the land under subsection (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de fact possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under subsection (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub- section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. In the case on hand, the Statement Government has in our considered view not been able to establish any of those situations and hence learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of Repeal Act, 1989.

               xxxx

               46. We have no hesitation in saying that the State has not placed true and correct facts in all respect. Both of us (J.B. Pardiwala and R.Mahadevan, J.J.) have worked as judges in our respective High Courts. We had the occasion to decide many matters exactly of the present type. Our experience so far has been that out of ten matters in nine matters it was apparent that the cases were one of paper possession. The present case is also one of paper possession. The learned Single Judge was constrained to observe that having regard to the materials on record few documents were found to be ante dated coupled with fabrication of evidence to some extent. All this has been dismissed by the Division Bench saying that they could be clerical errors or arithmetical errors”.

21. The above findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, as on the date of Notification under Section 10 (5) of the Act, the ancestors of the Vendors were in possession of the subject property and without issuing any notice to them, they conducted paper panchanama. In view of the same, the contention of the respondent authorities that the subject property belongs to the Government cannot be sustained as the same was not taken over by following the procedure as contemplated under the ULC Act, 1976.

22. In a similar matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram, ((2013) 4 SCC 280) held as follows:

               “37. Requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word ‘may’ has been used therein, the word ‘may’ in both the sub-sections has to be understood as “shall” because a court charged with the task of enforcing the statute needs to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from failure to implement the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it might result the land holder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word ‘may’ has to be read as ‘shall’.

               41. Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of the Repeal Act 15 of 1999 on sub-section (3) to Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act 1999 has expressly repealed the Act 33 of 1976. The Object and Reasons of the Repeal Act has already been referred to in the earlier part of this Judgment. Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a statute before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case.

               42. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.

               43. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed so also the other appeals. No documents have been produced by the State to show that the respondents had been dispossessed before coming into force of the Repeal Act and hence, the respondents are entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. However, there will be no order as to costs”.

               (Emphasis added)

23. The findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above Judgment also squarely apply to facts of the instant case as there is no valid proceedings under ULC and without issuing any notice to the holder of the property, the respondent authorities have conducted paper panchanama and not taken over possession of the property as on this date.

24. The other specific contention of the petitioners is that, the respondent authorities are registering the documents pertaining to the same survey number, in which the subject property is situated, without any objections and the entire area is covered with residential houses. For this contention, there is no answer in the counter filed by the respondents and they are merely relying on the notice issued to the said Rahamath Ali and also panchanama and in view of the same, the refusal orders are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside and the respondent authorities have to register the subject documents without taking into account of ULC proceedings.

25. In view of the above findings, these writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the impugned Refusal Intimation Nos.53/P6/2025/Refusal Order No.1/2025 and No.54/P7/2025/Refusal Order No.2/2025, dated 04.02.2025 respectively and the respondent authorities are directed to register and release the subject documents presented by the petitioners in P.No.6/2025 and P.No.7/2025, subject to petitioners complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.