Se. 6 of ULC Act - Land declared as with in limits of ceiling - Sec.4 of L.A.Act - Govt. acquired the same land for purpose of Telephone Department - request to Review the award as per sec.26 of ULC Act not permissible - Award passed along with statutory benefits - Award become final due dismissal of SLP by S.C.- E.P. filed - objection under sec.26 of ULC Act - and also writ was field - their Lordships held that By its very nature, the option provided for under Section 26 comes into play only when the owner of the land expresses intention to sell it. It was not even alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 expressed their intention to sell it. Therefore, the question of the State Government choosing to exercise its option to purchase it does not arise. At any rate, the petitioner does not figure anywhere in the picture in a situation contemplated under Section 26 of the ULC Act. It is ultimately for the State Government, not for the Land Acquisition Officer to take a decision under Section 26 of the ULC Act. The petitioner is under a misconception that even where the land is acquired by invoking the provisions of the LA Act, Section 26 of the ULC Act comes into play. One has to keep in mind, the distinction between the voluntary transfers on the one hand and involuntary transfers on the other hand. The transfer that takes place as a result of initiation of proceedings under the LA Act, is, beyond any pale of doubt, an involuntary one. The acquisition is done irrespective of the intention of the owner, and many a time, in spite of the opposition to it. Therefore, occasion to invoke Section 26 of the ULC Act, in the event of any transfer taking place as a result of acquisition by invoking the provisions of the LA Act, does not exist. The acceptance of the contention of the petitioner by the executing Court would have the effect of reviewing, if not setting aside the order passed by this Court as confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in the S.L.P filed by the petitioner itself. Such a course is totally impermissible. In addition to that, the learned Presiding Officer of the executing Court has referred to several judgments in support of his conclusion that all the statutory benefits under the LA Act are extendable to non-surplus lands, acquired by the Government. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the executing Court. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. =CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4916 OF 2012 18-07-2014 The General Manager (Planning), O/o the P.G.M., Hyderabad Telecom District,BSNL Bhavan, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad - 50063... PETITIONER S. Sunandan Reddy @ R. Lakshminarayana Reddy and two others RESPONDENTS = 2014 - July-Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11794

Se. 6 of ULC Act - Land declared as with in limits of ceiling - Sec.4 of L.A.Act - Govt. acquired the same land for purpose of Telephone Department - request to Review the award as per sec.26 of ULC Act not permissible - Award passed along with statutory benefits - Award become final due dismissal of SLP by S.C.- E.P. filed - objection under sec.26 of ULC Act - and also writ was field - their Lordships held that  By its very nature, the option provided for under Section 26 comes into play only when the owner of the land expresses intention to sell it.  It
was not even alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 expressed  their intention to sell it.  
Therefore, the question of the State Government choosing to exercise its option to purchase it
does not arise.   At any rate, the petitioner does not figure anywhere in the picture in a situation contemplated under Section 26 of the ULC Act.  It is ultimately for the State Government, not for the Land Acquisition Officer to take a decision under Section 26 of the ULC Act. The petitioner is under a misconception that even where the land is acquired by invoking the provisions of the LA Act, Section 26 of the ULC Act comes into play.  One has to keep in mind, the distinction between the voluntary transfers on the one hand and involuntary transfers on the other hand.
The transfer that takes place as a result of initiation of proceedings under the LA Act, is, beyond any pale of doubt, an involuntary one.   The acquisition is done irrespective of the intention of the owner, and many a time, in spite of the opposition to it.   Therefore, occasion to invoke Section 26 of the ULC Act, in the event of any transfer taking place as a result of acquisition by invoking the provisions of the LA Act, does not exist.  The acceptance of the contention of the petitioner by the executing Court would have the effect of reviewing, if not setting aside the order passed by this Court as confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in the S.L.P filed by the petitioner itself.  Such a course is totally impermissible.  In addition to that, the learned Presiding Officer of the executing Court has referred to several judgments in support of his conclusion that all the statutory benefits under the LA Act are extendable to non-surplus lands, acquired by the Government.  This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the executing Court.  The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. =

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of about
13486 sq. mtrs of land at Adarshnagar of the Hyderabad city.
They filed declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the ULC Act) in
respect of the said land.
On processing the same, the Special
Officer and Competent Authority passed an order dated 23-
12-1983 holding that an extent of 8812.78 sq. mtrs is in
excess of ceiling limit and that an extent of 3663.91 sq. yards
is retainable area.  The said order became final.
     
The petitioner herein approached the Government of
Andhra Pradesh for acquisition of the land from respondent
Nos.1 and 2, for the purpose of extension of a telephone
exchange.  A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the LA Act) was published on
25-08-1996.
This was followed by a notification under
Section 6 of the Act.  In the context of passing award, the
Special Officer is said to have informed the Land Acquisition
Officer i.e., the 3rd respondent herein, that award can be
passed in respect of non-surplus area, whereas the
determination of compensation for the surplus land shall
await further proceedings.
Accordingly, the 3rd respondent
passed an award dated 30-05-1989 in respect of a
non-surplus land of 3363.91 sq. yards fixing the market value
at Rs.325/- per sq. yard, and one-third thereof was deducted
since the area was acquired in bulk.  Solatium at 30%,
additional market value and interest provided for under the
Act were also awarded. =

Once the Special Officer and Competent Authority
declares a particular area as within the ceiling limits
prescribed under the ULC Act, the declarant is entitled to use
it as per his wishes.
Hardly any restrictions can be placed.
Section 26 of the ULC Act is only to the effect that in case the
owner of such non-surplus land intends to sell or othewise
transfer it, the State Government shall have the first option to
purchase it, at the market value.
By its very nature, the
option provided for under Section 26 comes into play only
when the owner of the land expresses intention to sell it.  It
was not even alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 expressed
their intention to sell it.
Therefore, the question of the State
Government choosing to exercise its option to purchase it
does not arise.
At any rate, the petitioner does not figure
anywhere in the picture in a situation contemplated under
Section 26 of the ULC Act.
 It is ultimately for the State
Government, not for the Land Acquisition Officer to take a
decision under Section 26 of the ULC Act.
      The petitioner is under a misconception that even where
the land is acquired by invoking the provisions of the LA Act,
Section 26 of the ULC Act comes into play.
One has to keep
in mind, the distinction between the voluntary transfers on
the one hand and involuntary transfers on the other hand.
The transfer that takes place as a result of initiation of
proceedings under the LA Act, is, beyond any pale of doubt,
an involuntary one.
The acquisition is done irrespective of
the intention of the owner, and many a time, in spite of the
opposition to it.
Therefore, occasion to invoke Section 26 of
the ULC Act, in the event of any transfer taking place as a
result of acquisition by invoking the provisions of the LA Act,
does not exist.
      The decree passed in O.P No. 94 of 1991 is modified by
this Court in common judgment dated 19-06-2006 in
C.C.C.A Nos.138 of 1999 and 170 of 2001 and has assumed  
finality, with the dismissal of S.L.P by the Honble Supreme
Court.
 In clear and categorical terms, the trial Court as well
as this Court granted the relief of solatium, additional market
value and interest under the relevant provisions of the LA Act.

The acceptance of the contention of the petitioner by the
executing Court would have the effect of reviewing, if not
setting aside the order passed by this Court as confirmed by
the Honble Supreme Court in the S.L.P filed by the petitioner
itself.  Such a course is totally impermissible.  
In addition to
that, the learned Presiding Officer of the executing Court has
referred to several judgments in support of his conclusion
that all the statutory benefits under the LA Act are extendable
to non-surplus lands, acquired by the Government.
      This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
view taken by the executing Court.  The C.R.P is accordingly
dismissed. 

2014 - July-Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11794
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4916 OF 2012    
       
18-07-2014

The General Manager (Planning), O/o the P.G.M., Hyderabad Telecom District,BSNL  
Bhavan, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad - 50063... PETITIONER  

S. Sunandan Reddy @ R. Lakshminarayana Reddy and two others RESPONDENTS          

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.S. Murthy,
                             Standing Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4916 OF 2012    

Dated:18-07-2014

ORDER:
       

      This revision is filed against the order dated 10-09-2012
passed by the Court of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad in E.P No. 53 of 2007 in O.P No. 94 of
1991.
      The facts that gave rise to the revision are as under:
      Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of about
13486 sq. mtrs of land at Adarshnagar of the Hyderabad city.
They filed declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the ULC Act) in
respect of the said land.  On processing the same, the Special
Officer and Competent Authority passed an order dated 23-
12-1983 holding that an extent of 8812.78 sq. mtrs is in
excess of ceiling limit and that an extent of 3663.91 sq. yards
is retainable area.  The said order became final.
      The petitioner herein approached the Government of
Andhra Pradesh for acquisition of the land from respondent
Nos.1 and 2, for the purpose of extension of a telephone
exchange.  A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the LA Act) was published on
25-08-1996.  This was followed by a notification under
Section 6 of the Act.  In the context of passing award, the
Special Officer is said to have informed the Land Acquisition
Officer i.e., the 3rd respondent herein, that award can be
passed in respect of non-surplus area, whereas the
determination of compensation for the surplus land shall
await further proceedings.  Accordingly, the 3rd respondent
passed an award dated 30-05-1989 in respect of a
non-surplus land of 3363.91 sq. yards fixing the market value
at Rs.325/- per sq. yard, and one-third thereof was deducted
since the area was acquired in bulk.  Solatium at 30%,
additional market value and interest provided for under the
Act were also awarded. 
      At that stage, writ petitions came to be filed in relation
to the proceedings under the LA Act.  Ultimately, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 filed O.P No. 94 of 1991 before the Court of I
Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section
18 of the LA Act seeking enhancement of compensation.
Through its judgment dated 31-03-1989, the trial Court
enhanced the compensation, by fixing the market value
@ Rs.1,000/- per sq. yard.  Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed
C.C.C.A No. 138 of 1999 seeking further enhancement at the
rate of Rs.4,000/- per sq. yard. The 3rd respondent on the
other hand filed C.C.C.A No. 170 of 2001 challenging the
enhancement. Through its common judgment dated  
19-06-2006, a Division Bench of this Court enhanced the
market value of the acquired land, to Rs.1,800 per sq. yard.
      The petitioner filed S.L.P No. 860 of 2007 before the
Honble Supreme Court challenging the common judgment  
passed by this Court in C.C.C.A Nos.138 of 1999 and 170 of
2001 mainly on the ground that no notice was issued to it
under Section 3(b) of the LA Act.  The S.L.P was dismissed on
19-03-2007 and the review filed in it was also dismissed.
      Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed E.P No. 53 of 2007 to
recover the amount covered by the Award, as modified in
appeals, together with statutory benefits.  Certain amounts
were paid at various points of time. A calculation memo was
filed indicating the amount, which according to respondent
Nos.1 and 2 is payable to them.  The petitioner filed a counter
as well as calculation memo opposing the figures furnished by
respondent Nos.1 and 2.  The principal contention urged by
the petitioner was that though the land is non-surplus in
nature, it is governed by the provisions of the ULC Act and
that no statutory benefits are extendable to it.
      Respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted
that once the land was treated as non-surplus and an award
was passed under Section 11 of the LA Act, all the benefits
provided for under that Act are available to them.

      Through the order under revision, the executing Court
allowed the E.P holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.3,73,47,283/-.  Hence, the
revision.
      Sri R.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the surplus land as well as the non-surplus
land held by respondent Nos.1 and 2 were acquired for the
benefit of the petitioner and since both the bits were dealt
with under the ULC Act, the benefits such as, solatium and
additional market value are not payable for them.  He
contends that even in respect of non-surplus land,
Section 26 of the ULC Act becomes relevant and that the
executing Court was not justified in allowing the E.P.
      Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that from the
inception, the 3rd respondent maintained a clear distinction
between the surplus land on the one hand, and non-surplus
land on the other hand and only on being informed by the
Special Officer and Competent Authority under the ULC Act,
that an Award under the LA Act came to be passed in respect
of the non-surplus land.  He submits that this very ground
was raised by the petitioner in the SLP filed against the
common judgment of this Court in C.C.C.A Nos.138 of 1999
and 170 of 2001, and one it was rejected by the Honble
Supreme Court, it is not open to them to repeat the same
contention in the execution proceedings.
      It is not in dispute that the land that was acquired from
respondent Nos.1 and 2 comprised of two categories, namely,
surplus land and non-surplus land, under the ULC Act.  The
vesting of surplus land in the Government would take place
on issuance and publication of notices.  The manner in which
the surplus land was dealt with, is not before this Court.
This Court is concerned only with the non-surplus land,
which, the executing Court referred to as protected land.
      Once the Special Officer and Competent Authority
declares a particular area as within the ceiling limits
prescribed under the ULC Act, the declarant is entitled to use
it as per his wishes.  Hardly any restrictions can be placed.
Section 26 of the ULC Act is only to the effect that in case the
owner of such non-surplus land intends to sell or othewise
transfer it, the State Government shall have the first option to
purchase it, at the market value.  By its very nature, the
option provided for under Section 26 comes into play only
when the owner of the land expresses intention to sell it.  It
was not even alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 expressed
their intention to sell it.  Therefore, the question of the State
Government choosing to exercise its option to purchase it
does not arise.  At any rate, the petitioner does not figure
anywhere in the picture in a situation contemplated under
Section 26 of the ULC Act.  It is ultimately for the State
Government, not for the Land Acquisition Officer to take a
decision under Section 26 of the ULC Act.
      The petitioner is under a misconception that even where
the land is acquired by invoking the provisions of the LA Act,
Section 26 of the ULC Act comes into play.  One has to keep
in mind, the distinction between the voluntary transfers on
the one hand and involuntary transfers on the other hand.
The transfer that takes place as a result of initiation of
proceedings under the LA Act, is, beyond any pale of doubt,
an involuntary one.  The acquisition is done irrespective of
the intention of the owner, and many a time, in spite of the
opposition to it.  Therefore, occasion to invoke Section 26 of
the ULC Act, in the event of any transfer taking place as a
result of acquisition by invoking the provisions of the LA Act,
does not exist.
      The decree passed in O.P No. 94 of 1991 is modified by
this Court in common judgment dated 19-06-2006 in
C.C.C.A Nos.138 of 1999 and 170 of 2001 and has assumed  
finality, with the dismissal of S.L.P by the Honble Supreme
Court.  In clear and categorical terms, the trial Court as well
as this Court granted the relief of solatium, additional market
value and interest under the relevant provisions of the LA Act.
The acceptance of the contention of the petitioner by the
executing Court would have the effect of reviewing, if not
setting aside the order passed by this Court as confirmed by
the Honble Supreme Court in the S.L.P filed by the petitioner
itself.  Such a course is totally impermissible.  In addition to
that, the learned Presiding Officer of the executing Court has
referred to several judgments in support of his conclusion
that all the statutory benefits under the LA Act are extendable
to non-surplus lands, acquired by the Government.
      This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
view taken by the executing Court.  The C.R.P is accordingly
dismissed.  The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision
shall also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to
costs.
___________________________    
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
18th July, 2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.