APHC010078062022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4860. 9054, 32829 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO: 4860 OF 2022 Between: Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mills, Rep by its Managing Partner, Kancharla Kanaka Rao, aged 71 years, R/0 54-20/6-1 A, Plot No.19, Dairy Officers Colony, Road No.2, Vijayawada 520008 ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (ULC) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Revenue Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 3. The District Collector, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. The Joint Collector, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 5. The TahsNdhar, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the high-handed action of 4th Respondent i : putting/displaying notice on the wall of the premises belonging to the Petitioner on 09.02.2022 to i&0 in an extent of Ac1.14Cents in Rs.no.343/4 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District showing the said land is covered by Urban Land Ceiling is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (Act 15 of 1999 ) and Section 3 Repeal Act (Act 15 of 1999) and consequently direct the 4th Respondent remove notice displayed on 09.02.2022 of to lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents particularly 4^"^ Respondent not to take steps including dispossession of Petitioner from their land Ac.1.14Cents in Rs.no.343/4 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal District under the guise of notice displayed on 09.02.2022 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL APHC010141442022 any coercive to an extent of , Krishna WRIT PETITION NO: 9054 OF 2022 Between: Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill Kanaka Rao, aged 71 Colony, Road No.2, Vijayawada 520008 Rep by its Managing Partner, Kancharla years, R/o 54-20/6-1 A, Plot No. 19, Dairy Officers ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (ULC) Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 3. The District Collector, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. The Joint Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 5. The Tahsildhar, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus a. declaring the Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the 4th Respondent SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/Penamaluru proceedings vide in pursuance of Go.Ms.36 dated 31.01.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Section 9 and Section 10 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 ( Act 33 of 1976) and Section 3 and Section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (Act 15 of 1999) and b. Also further declare that scheme provided under Go.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008 and Go.Ms.No.36 dated 31.01.2022 has in no application to the land admeasuring Ac.1.14Cents in Sy.no.343/4A of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District belonging to the Petitioner as the stage of Section 10 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 ( Act 33 of 1976) is not reached so far as the Petitioner is concerned and c. Consequently set aside the Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the Respondent SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/Penamaluru being violative of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 ( Act 33 of 1976) and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 ( Act 15 of 1999 ) and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India 4th proceedings vide in lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the 4 Respondent in proceedings vide SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/Penamalu ru Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL th APHC010534432022 WRIT PETITION NO: 32829 OF 2022 Between: Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill, Rep by its Managing Partner, Kancharla Kanaka Rao, aged 71 years, R/0 54-20/6-1 A, Plot No. 19, Dairy Officers Colony, Road No.2, Vijayawada 520008 ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (ULC) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Additional Secretary, Revenue (ULC) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 3. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Revenue Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 4. Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 5. The District Collector, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 6. The Joint Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 7. The Tahsildhar, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh 8. Special Deputy Tahsildhar, Urban Land Ceiling, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh r Amaravathi, Department^ ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus a) declaring the Proceedings vide Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1 dated 28.10.1986 issued by the 2nd Respondent not granting exemption under Section 20(1 )(a) of Act 33 of 1976 and further declaring communication of the said Proceedings on the Petitioner after issuance of the same is deemed to be not Served on the Petitioner and Enforceable and stood abated by virtue of Repeal of Act 33 of 1976 is illegal, arbitrary and Non Est in the eye of law and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and b) declaring the various Alleged Orders/Steps/Notices stated to be issued by the Respondents under Section 10 of the Act 33 of 1976 stood abated by virtue of Repeal of Act 33 of 1976 as none of the non soon same are served on the Petitioner which is mandatory under the procedure contemplated under Section 10 of the Act 33 of 1976 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and c) declaring the various Alleged Orders/Steps/Notices stated to be issued by the Respondents under Section 10(1) to 10(5) of the Act 33 of 1976 including the Alleged Panchnama conducted by the 8 Respondent under Section 10(6) of the Act 33 of 1976 without serving Notice on the Petitioner or allowing the Petitioner to exercise his option to select the land to be retained or surrendered is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently declaring all the actions stood abated by virtue of the Repeal of Act 33 of 1976 th lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Proceedings vide Memo No.828/UC.III/86- 1 dated 28.10.1986 issued by the 2nd Respondent and the various Alleged Orders/Steps/Notices stated to be issued by the Respondents under Section 10(1) to 10(5) of the Act 33 of 1976 including the Alleged Panchnama conducted by the 8th Respondent under Section 10(6) of the Act 33 of 1976 Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 8: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following Common Order: APHC010078062022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] Bi5:^ WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION Nos: 4860. 9054 & 32829/2022 WRIT PETITION NO: 4860/2022 Between: 1.SRI LAKSHMI MODERN RICE MILLS, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER KANCHARLA KANAKA RAO. AGED 71 YEARS, R/0 54- 20/6-1A, PLOT N0.19, DAIRY OFFICERS COLONY. ROAD NO 2 VIJAYAWADA 520008 ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. REVENUE SECRETARIAT. VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT GUNTUR DISTRICT 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. PRADESH 4.THE JOINT COLLECTOR, f “ VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 5.THE TAHSILDHAR, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ITS (ULC) DEPARTMENT REVENUE SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA URBAN LAND CEILING OFFICE, ...RESPONDENT{S): Page 2 of 22 SRS.J W P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the high-handed action of 4th Respondent in putting/displaying notice on the wall of the premises belonging to the Petitioner on 09.02.2022 to an extent of Ac1.14Cents in Rs.no.343/4 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District showing the said land is covered by Urban Land Ceiling is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 ( Act 15 of 1999 ) and Section 3 of Repeal Act (Act 15 of 1999) and consequently direct the 4th Respondentto remove notice displayed on 09.02.2022 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents particularly 4th Respondent not to take any coercive steps including dispossession of Petitioner from their land to an extent of Ac.1.14Cents in Rs.no.343/4 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District under the guise of notice displayed on 09.02.2022 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 9054/2022 Between: 1.SRI LAKSHMI MODERN RICE MILL,, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER KANCHARLA KANAKA RAO, AGED 71 YEARS, RIO 54- 20/6-1 A, PLOT NO.19, DAIRY OFFICERS COLONY, ROAD N0.2, VIJAYAWADA 520008 ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4.THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILING OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 5.THE TAHSILDHAR, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus a) declaring the Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the Respondent in proceedings vide Penamaluru in pursuance of Go.Ms.36 dated 31.01.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Section 9 and Section 10 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 ( Act 33 of 1976) and Section 3 and Section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 ( Act 15 of 1999) and b) Also further declare that scheme provided under Go.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008 and Go.Ms.No.36 dated 31.01.2022 has no application to the land admeasuring Ac.1.14Cents in Sy.no.343/4A of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District belonging to the Petitioner as the stage of Section 10 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 ( Act 33 of 1976) is not reached so far as the Petitioner is concerned and c) Consequently set aside the Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the 4th Respondent in proceedings vide SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/PenamaIu ru being violative of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 ( Act 33 of 1976) and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 ( Act 15 of 1999 ) and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and pass 4th SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/ lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Page 4 of 22 SRS.j W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 t suspend the operation of Notice dated 04.03.2022 issued by the 4th Respondent in proceedings vide SR.No.2803/1984/2022/UCL/Penamalu ru and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .THE ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 32829/2022 Between: 1.SRI LAKSHMI MODERN RICE MILL, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER KANCHARLA KANAKA RAO, AGED 71 YEARS, R/0 54- 20/6-1 A, PLOT N0.19, DAIRY OFFICERS COLONY, ROAD N0.2, VIJAYAWADA 520008 ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ULC) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4.COMMISSIONER OF LAND REFORMS AND URBAN LAND CEILINGS, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 5.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 6.THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILING OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 7.THE TAHSILDHAR, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 8.SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDHAR, URBAN LAND CEIUNG, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus a)declaring the Proceedings vide Memo N0.828/UC.III/86-1 dated 28.10.1986 issued by the 2nd Respondent not granting exemption under Section 20(1 )(a) of Act 33 of 1976 and further declaring non communication of the said Proceedings on the Petitioner soon after issuance of the same is deemed to be not Served on the Petitioner and Enforceable and stood abated by virtue of Repeal of Act 33 of 1976 is illegal, arbitrary and Non Est in the eye of law and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and b)declaring the various Alleged Orders/Steps/Notices stated to be issued by the Respondents under Section 10 of the Act 33 of 1976 stood abated by virtue of Repeal of Act 33 of 1976 as none of the same are served on the Petitioner which is mandatory under the procedure contemplated under Section 10 of the Act 33 of 1976 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and c) declaring the various Alleged Orders/Steps/Notices stated to be issued by the Respondents under Section 10(1) to 10(5) of the Act 33 of 1976 including the Alleged Panchnama conducted by the Stn Respondent under Section 10(6) of the Act 33 of 1976 without serving Notice on the Petitioner or allowing the Petitioner to exercise his option to select the land to be retained or surrendered is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently declaring all the actions stood abated by virtue of the Repeal of Act 33 of 1976 and pass lA NO; 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Proceedings vide Memo No.828/UC.III/86- 1 dated 28.10.1986 issued by the 2nd Respondent and the various Alleged Orders/Steps/Notices stated to be issued by the Respondents under Section 10(1) to 10(5) of the Act 33 of 1976 including the Alleged Panchnama Page 6 of 22 SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 conducted by the 8th Respondent under Section 10(6) of the Act 33 of 1976 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above Writ Petition and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased receive the Reply Affidavit to Counter Affidavit filed by the 6 Respondent record by allowing the leave petition in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: »A 1.N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: :: COMMON ORDER:: Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are interconnected, the writ petitions are disposed of by way of a common order. 2. The facts, in brief, are that: (a) The Managing Partner of the petitioner purchased an agricultural land of an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in R.S.No.343/4 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, under a registered document dated 27.02.1984. The Managing Partner of the petitioner and others entered into a partnership on 01.03.1984, to carry on business under the name and style of Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill in the aforementioned property. The Managing SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 Partner made an application to Poranki Gram Panchayat on 21.03.1984 to construct the structure. The Executive Officer of Poranki Gram Panchayat, by proceedings in D.Dis.No.140/84, dated 05.06.1984, accorded permission. The Managing Partner of the petitioner obtained no objection for the construction of a house with an RCC roof and godown, from Vijayawada - Guntur - Tenali Urban Development Authority by D.Dis.No.1871/84, dated 16.08.1984. The Director of Factories approved the plan on 29.06.1984 and revised the plan on 06.12.1994. The Department of Industries issued a certificate for permanent registration of a rice mill on 04.09.1985. The Managing Partner of the petitioner started operations in a rice mill and operated till May 2021. The premises were leased out for a godown purpose to NSPIRA Management Services Private Limited by a lease deed dated 30.10.2021 for 5 years. From the date of commencement of the rice mill till its closure, taxes have been paid regularly. (b) Be that as it may, respondent No.4 pasted a notice on the wall on 09.02.2022, stating that the land in R.S.No.343/4A is covered under Urban Land Ceiling and the encroachers, if any, will be punished. Challenging this, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4860 of 2022. (c) (d) Pending the said writ petition, respondent No.4 issued a notice vide SR No.2803/1384/2022/ULC/Penamaluru Mandal, dated 04.03.2022, directing the petitioner to get the land regularised under G.O.Ms.No.36 Revenue U.C.-I Department, dated 31.01.2022. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 9054 of 2022. 3. A counter affidavit was fHed in W.P.No.9054 of 2022 by respondent No.4, enclosing the proceedings vide Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, issued by respondent No.2, whereby declining to grant exemption under Section 20(1 )(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Along with the counter affidavit, the proceedings under Section 10 of the ULC Act are also annexed. Challenging SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 the memo dated 28.10.1986 and the consequential proceedings under Section 10 of the ULC Act, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32829 of 2022. The Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, recommended exemption of an extent of Ac.3113.17 square meters of Poranki Village vide Letter No.AU03/780/86, dated 31.07.1986. In the said letter, the Commissioner observed as follows: 4. “The Managing partner of the petitioner applied for exemption to an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in R.S.No.343/4 of Poranki Village, Vijayawada Urban Agglomeration under Section 20(1 )(a) of the ULC Act for modern rice mill. The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Vijayawada, by proceedings in C.No.2803/84, dated 06.09.1984 treated the total land of 4613.47 square meters as holding of the firm and the firm is entitled for 1500 square meters and that an extent of 3113.47 square meters to be surrendered to the Government. The authority also reported that according to inspection report of the General Manager, District Industries Center and Zonal Engineer, APIIC, Vijayawada, the firm is eligible to have 7055.71 square meters and that it is a S.S.I Unit registered under Small Scale Industries and plans were approved. The District Level Committee in its meeting held on 31.10.1985, agreed to recommend the exemption application under Section 20(1) (a) of the ULC Act, filed by the Managing partner for exemption of 3113.47 square meters. The Collector, Krishna in D.Dis.8037/84, dated 02.01.1986 recommended for exemption, subject to usual conditions as the land in question is outside the Master Plan Area, but within the Urban Agglomeration and as this is an industry. The Commissioner addressed the report of the Collector, and requested to grant exemption.” SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 Separate counter affidavits have been filed in W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 of 2022. The averments in the counter affidavit in W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 are similar, and hence, the averments in the counter affidavit of W.P.No.9054 of 2022 are being extracted. 5. 6. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit and contended inter alia, that: (a) After due inquiry, the then Special Officer & Competent Authority has issued Section 8(4) orders vide proceedings No.CC/B1.2803/84 , dated 06.09.1984. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, ULC, forwarded the application filed by the Managing Partner of the petitioner to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue (UC.III) Department, duly enclosing a copy of the letter submitted by the Collector, Krishna. The then Collector, Krishna, requested to grant exemption to an extent of 3113.47 square meters in R.S.N0.343/4A of Poranki Village. (b) The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo N0.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, pointing out the judgment in W.P.No.6512 of 1983 that if agricultural land is sold, utilized or intended to be utilized for non-agricultural purposes, it should be treated as vacant land, attracting the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, the transaction violates provisions of the ULC Act, and hence, the exemption cannot be granted under Section 20(1 )(a) of the Act, unless the land owner files the statement before the competent authority. The Special Officer and Competent Authority ULC, Vijayawada, therefore requested to take action accordingly, in terms of the Government Memo dated 10.09.1986. (c) Accordingly, a notice was given to one Smt. N. Sitaravamma. In turn, she replied about the alienation of an agricultural land and later the construction of the rice mill by the purchaser. Hence, she did not file any applicationunder Section6(1) of the Act. SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 The proceedings under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act were issued on 02.09.1991 and 07.12.1991. Section 10(3) of the Act was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part II at page No.629, dated 08.05.1997. The possession of the land was taken on 03.01.2007 under Section 10(6) of the Act. Thereafter, a pamphlet was affixed. A notice dated 04.03.2022 was issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 31.01.2022. The Special Officer and Competent Authority of ULC had adopted the procedure under Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act. (d) (e) Respondent No.4 determined that the petitioner is holding an extent 3113.47 square meters in R.S.No.343/4A of Poranki Village, and the same was informed to the petitioner vide CC.No.2803/1984 dated 06.09.1984. Though the possession of the land was taken on 03.01.2007, the petitioner continued the building operations till 2021 in the schedule property. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 7. Heard Sri N. Bharath Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yathidra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Office of learned Advocate General, appeared for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents made in the affidavit, would further contend that the proceedings of the Government vide Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, were not communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel would also submit that the procedure mandated under Section 10(1), 10(2) and 10(5) of the Act was not adhered to. The possession of the land was never taken, and the petitioner continued the rice mill till 2021. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the discrepancy regarding the Gazette notifications issued under Section 10(3) and 10(1) of the Act and the possession, allegedly taken as per the Panchanama on 03.01.2007. Though the authorisation under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 21.04.2007, the possession of the property, allegedly. 8. SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 had taken on 03.01.2007 before in point in time, itself discerns the violations at every stage. 9. Sri Yathindra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader, would contend that the proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 28.10.1986 communicated to the petitioner immediately. Respondent No.4 adhered to the procedure as mandated under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act. were 10. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide Memo N0.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, were communicated to the petitioner or not? 2. Whether respondent No.4 adhered to the procedure as mandated under Sections 10(1), 10(3), 10(5) & 10(6) of the Act? 3. Whether the possession of the property was taken on 03.01.2007 or not? Whether the petitioner continued illegally, despite the possession being taken by the Government, and the petitioner has to pay the amount as per G.O.Ms. No.36 dated 31.01.2022? 4. 11. Since all points for consideration are interrelated, they have been discussed simultaneously. The narration of the facts referred to supra, there is no dispute regarding the purchase of land and making an application by the Managing Partner of the petitioner seeking exemption under the Act; recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling dated 31.07.1986 in W.P.No.32829 of 2022; issuance of Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, by respondent No.2, pointing out the judgment in W.P.No.6512 of 1983 and denying the granting of exemption, and further directing the vendor 12. Page 12 of 22 SRS.j W P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 to file the statement under Section 6(1) of the Act before the competent authority. As seen from Ex.P2 filed in W.P.No.32829 of 2022, a notice under Section 6(2) of the ULC Act was issued to the vendor, and the vendor replied vide Ex.P3, stating that she alienated the property as an agricultural land and hence, there is no intention to file any declaration. 13. The petitioner specifically contended in the affidavit that the proceedings vide Ex.P1 (rejection proceedings) in W.P.No.32829 of 2022 were not communicated to the petitioner, and the petitioner is unaware of the same. Whereas, in the counter affidavit, it was contended that the proceedings vide Ex.PI were communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner is aware of the same. When the petitioner denied communication and the respondents asserted communication, the respondents should have placed some cogent material before this Court to substantiate the same. However, no piece of evidence was filed to substantiate the said contention. Any order passed by the authority should be communicated to the litigant or the applicant. Unless and until the order is communicatedto the applicant, the appellant cannot be expected to know about the decision of the authority. If the order is not communicated, it has no force in the eyes of the law. 14. 15. The Madras High Court in The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu and Ors.^ held thus: "A decision cannot properly be said to be passed until it is in some way pronounced or published under such circumstances that the parties affected by it have a reasonable opportunity of knowing what it contains. Till then, though it may be written out, signed and dated, it is nothing but the decision which the officer intends to pass. It is not passed so long as It is open to him to tear up what he has written and write something else." (1911) ILR 34 Mad 151 -! '■ SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 In Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus; 16. "12 Therefore to make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government it must be communicated to the person concerned. "13. Thus, it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. " In State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika^, the Hon'ble Apex Court 17. held thus: It is plain that mere passing of an order of dismissal would not be effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned." 11 18. This Court reiterated the same principle in Samasetti Nagabhushanam Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors'*. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended regarding the irregularities under Section 10 of the Act. One of the irregularities pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities failed to adhere to the procedure under Section 10 of the Act. 19. 20. Section 10 of the Act envisages the acquisition of vacant land over the ceiling limit. After service of a statement under Section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person more than the ceiling limit and the same to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act speaks about the objections and consideration of objections. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act prescribes the publication of a notification in the Official Gazette ^ AIR 1963 SC 395 ^ AIR 1966 SC 1313, MAN U/AP/1215/2023 Wlm SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 declaring the excess land referred to in the notification published under sub section (1) of the Act and determining the provision that the land is vested with the State Government. 21. A perusal of notice vide Ex.P4, issued under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, would indicate that a Gazette under Section 10(1) of the Act was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.256. However, the date of the Gazette was not mentioned. In Ex.P5, the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, it was mentioned that the Gazette under Section 10(3) of the Act was published in Gazette No.256, dated 19.09.1991. Despite the discrepancy being pointed out, the Gazettes were not filed along with the counter-affidavit, except stating that the authority adhered to the procedure. 22. In para No.4 of the counter-affidavit, it was stated as follows; “It is further submitted that U/s 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act were issued on 2.9.91 and 7.12.91 respectively. And 10(3) of the Act published vide in A.P.Gazette Part II at page No.629, dt.8.05.1997 and Possession of the land has been taken over to an extent of 3113.47Sq.mts in R.S.No.343/4A of Poranki Village on 03.01.2007 U/s 10(6) of the Act.” 23. As pointed out supra, no date was mentioned in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.256 in Ex.P4, whereas in Ex.P5, the date for Gazette No.256 was given as 19.09.1991. Even the copies of the gazette notifications are not placed before the Court. This is one of the irregularities. 24. Sub-section 5 of the Section 10 of the Act, prescribes that 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, in possession of it, to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. If any person refuses to comply with the order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take SRS,J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 possession of the vacant land or cause, or authorise any person to take possession under Section 10(6) of the Act. 25. Given the scheme, a perusal of Ex.P7/panchanama would indicate that the possession of the land was taken on 03.01.2007, and the authorization under Section 10(6) of the Act was given to the Special Deputy Tahsildar on 21.04.2007 under Ex.P6. Thus, even before authorization, the Special Deputy Tahsildar allegedly took possession of the property, beyond the comprehension of a prudent person. However, the counter-affidavit did not explain the discrepancy, a crucial aspect. Ex.P7, Panchanama would further discern that the land of an extent 3113.47 square meters was taken over in the presence of witnesses on 03.01.2007 and the boundaries were mentioned as East: R.S.No.342, West: R.S.No.343/3, South: R.S.No.343/4B and North: R.S.No.343/2. This instance makes the things more than discernible that the respondent authorities failed to adhere to the procedure under Sec 10 of the Act. Regarding the service of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that no notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was served on the petitioner. Nothing was placed before the Court regarding the service of the notice by the respondents. 26. Learned Single Judge of Composite High Court in P. Lakshmi Kantha Rao and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others®, regarding service of notice at para Nos.21 & 22, observed as follows: 27. On 2.2.2008, the 2'^^ respondent approved the noting and reference to notice issued under Section 10(5) on 1.9.2007 is made. The onus, as noted above, is on the 2"^ respondent to satisfy that notice was issued to the petitioners to take up next stage under Section ‘ 10(6) of the Act. As observed by the apex Court, the service of notice on the persons in possession of surplus land under Section 10(5) of the 21. L(2015) 3 ALD 248 SRJS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 Act is mandatory for two reasons, firstly to enable the person in possession of the land to voluntarily surrender the surplus land either to the State Government or to person authorized by the State Government. With the expiry of the period stipulated under the Act, the respondents can take possession forcefully as is required depending on satisfactorily discharging the onus viz., that then otices under Section 10(5) of the Act are issued to the petitioners cannot by reference to endorsement dated 13.3.2008 claim to have taken possession of the surplus land from the petitioners. The possession as is evident from the counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit does not say whether it is voluntarily or forcible. 22. The ratio of the decisions In Hariram’s (supra) and Gajanan Kamlya Patil’s case (supra), applies with full fours to the case on hand. The definite case of respondents is that after notice under Section 10(5), possession under Section 10(6) was taken over on 13.3.2008. As already noticed, the burden is on the 2'^'^ respondent to prove that the procedure is followed and possession taken over on 13.3.2008. The service of notice under Section 10(5) cannot be inferred from note file, but should be proved by primary evidence. The additional counter- affidavit and original record belie this assertion. At the time of taking up steps under Section 10(6), the note file does not refer to service of notice under Section 10(5), but it refers to Issue of notice under Section 10(5) on 1.9.2007. From the record it is evident that there is breach in following mandatory procedure and the respondents cannot claim possession of subject land for any purpose.” 28. In fact, the learned Judge observed that the service of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act cannot be inferred from a note file but should be proved by primary evidence. SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hariram®, while dealing with 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, observed as follows: Requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word ‘may’ has been used therein, the v\/ord ‘may’ in both the sub-sections has to be understood as “shall” because a court charged with the task of enforcing the statute 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 10 is that it might result the land holder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word ‘may’ has to be read as ‘shall’. ‘34. Above-mentioned directives make it clear that sub-section (3) takes in only de jure possession and not de facto possession, therefore, if the land owner Is not surrendering possession voluntarily under sub-section (3) of Section 10, or surrendering or delivering possession after notice, under Section 10(5) or dispossession by use of force, it cannot be said that the State Government has taken possession of the vacant land. ” 36. Thus, the discussion supra, this Court concludes that no notice under Sec 10(5) of the Act was served on the petitioner. 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the Effect of the Repeal Act, observed as follows; 31. 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 ‘39. "(2013) 4 ,SCC.280 SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 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 3 of the Repeal Act. ” a The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Andhra Pradesh Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tashsildar & others, ETC^, considered the earlier judgements vis-a-vis the procedure mandated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act observed as follows: 32. If de facto possession has already passed on to the State Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) to Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression “where any land is vested.” Under sub-section (5) to Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) to Section 10 can be voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1976 early. Once there Is no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in writing under sub-section (5) to Section 10 to surrender or deliver possession. Sub-section (5) of Section 10 visualizes a situation of surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession. 38. 39. 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 18.03.1999. 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 '2025 INSC 274 W Page 19 of 22 SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 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 State Government has in our considered view not been able to establish any of those situations and hence the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. The effect of Repeal Act, 1999 is further clear. If the landowner remains in physical possession, then irrespective of his land being declared surplus and/or entry being made in favour of the State in revenue records, he will not be divested of his rights. Even if compensation is received that also will not dis-entitle him to claim the benefit if compensation is refunded, provided he is in actual physical possession. Payment of compensation has no co-relation with the taking of actual physical possession as with the vesting land compensation becomes payable which can be paid without taking actual physical possession. 40. The propositions of law governing the issue of possession in context with Sections 10(5) and 10(6) respectively of the Act, 1976 read with Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 may be summed up thus: 41. The Repeal Act, 1999 clearly talks about the possession being taken under Section 10(5) or Section 10 (6) of the Act, 1976, as the case may be. [1] It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent authority or the State to take possession strictly as permitted in law. [2] In case the possession is purported to have been taken under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged to look into whether “taking of such possession” is valid or Invalidated on any of the considerations in law. [3] The possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only. [4] SRS.J W,P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 iV [5] The mere vesting of “land declared surplus” under the Act ]A/ithout resuming “de facto possession” is of no consequence and the land holder is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999. The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 respectively is mandatory. Although the work “may” has been used therein, yet the word “may” in both the sub-sections should be understood as “shall” because a Court is obliged to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from the failure to implement the requirement. [6] 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^'' March, 1999. [7] [8] The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10.” 33. Concerning the conduct of panchanama, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para No.45, observed as follows; “.... When State Authorities try to take law in their own hands by hook or crook and rely on bogus paper panchanamas for the purpose of asserting that actual physical possession was taken over before the date of the repeal, then it is imperative that the signature of the landowner must be obtained In the panchanama so as to attach sanctity and authenticity to such exercise of taking over of actual possession. Affidavits of the panchas would also attach great sanctity to the same. ” In the case at hand, the panchanama said to have been conducted while taking possession does not inspire the confidence of the Court. The latches., according to this Court, are (1) Non-mentioning of boundaries except 34. F»age 21 of 22 SRS.J W.P.Nos.4860, 9054 & 32829 of 2022 survey numbers; (2) taking possession even before the authorization (3) non service of notice and the existence and functioning of the mill even after the possession was allegedly taken by the respondent authorities. These discrepancies demonstrate that the panchanama and the taking of possession under it are factually incorrect, and it can be termed as paper possession. Thus, as discussed supra, this Court concludes that the rejection proceedings dated 28.10.1986 were not communicated to the petitioner. Respondent No.4 failed to adhere to the procedure under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act i.e. publication of Gazettes. Respondent No. 4 failed to serve notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. Even before the authorisation under Ex.P6, possession was allegedly taken under Ex.P7 Panchanama; however, no possession was taken under the Panchanama. Section 3 of the Act does not apply to the case at hand, since the respondent authorities failed to prove that the possession of the land was taken over. Given the discussion supra, the Memo No.828/UC.III/86-1, dated 28.10.1986, is hereby set aside, and the consequential proceedings under Sections 10(1), 10(5) of the Act and the alleged panchanama under Section 10(6) of the Act are declared as abated by the repeal of the Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. 35. 36. 37. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dosed. //TRUE COPY// GISTRAR KSECTIO FICER To, 1 ■ The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (ULC) Guntur District Pradesh, Revenue (ULC) , Guntur District Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, 2. The Additional Secretary, State of Andhra Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi 3. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District Revenue Department 4. Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 5. The District Collector, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 6. The Joint Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 7. The Tahsildhar, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh 8. Special Deputy Tahsildhar, Urban Land Ceiling, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 9. One CC to SRI N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CCs to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 11. Two CD Copies gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 23/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 4860, 9054 & 32829 OF 2022 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS