B.R. Naidu and Others vs The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling and Others

Syed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.—Heard both the counsel. Both the parties agreed to dispose of the writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance of notices issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by the 1st Respondent in respect of Ac.12-00 of land in S.No. 391 of Sheikpet village, Golconda Mandal, the petitioners have filed objections along with their relevant title documents and other revenue documents, before the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling i.e., the respondent within the stipulated time on the ground that they are the absolute owners of the property and it does not belong to the declarant.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the objections have been filed by the petitioners before the respondent, the respondent has issued a memo No. E/9133/76, dated 13-9-1996 directing the petitioners to produce the documents mentioned therein. The respondent is entitled only to scrutinise and test the validity of the title of the declarant in the light of the objections and the material i.e., documents placed before it by the petitioners-objectors. In view of this, the direction issued by the respondent to produce the documents mentioned in the impugned memo to the petitioners, is illegal and not sustainable in law.

The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent submits that in order to test the title, the respondent requires the documents mentioned in the impugned memo, as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in respondent directing the petitioners to produce the said documents.

It is contended by Mr. Chennakesavarao, the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is for the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which empowers only to scrutinise the title or the validity of the title of the declarant, to come to its conclusion whether the declarant is the true owner or not and the objections filed therein by the petitioners-objectors, warrant consideration and pass orders.

Section 8 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 reads as under:

"Preparation of draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit:-

(1) On the basis of the statement filed u/s 6 and after such enquiry as the competent authority may deem fit to make, the competent authority shall prepare a draft statement in respect of the person who has filed the statement u/s 6.

(2) Every statement prepared under Sub-section (1) shall contain the following particulars, namely:-

(i) the name and address of the person,

(ii) the particulars of all vacant lands and of any other land on which there is a building, whether or not with a dwelling unit therein, held by such person;

(iii) the particulars of the vacant lands which such person desires to retain within the ceiling limit;

(iv) the particulars of the right, title or interest of the person in the vacant lands; and

(v) such other particulars as may be prescribed.

(3) The draft statement shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within thirty days of the service thereof.

(4) The competent authority shall duly consider any objection received, within the period specified in the notice referred to in Sub-section (3) or within such further period as may be specified by the competent authority for any good and sufficient reason, from the person on whom a copy of the draft statement has been served under that subsection and the competent authority shall, after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it deems fit."

Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 8 enjoin that the Competent Authority shall duly consider any objections received within the period specified in the notice referred to in Sub-section (3) from the person on whom a copy of the draft statement has been served under that Sub-section and the competent authority shall, after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it deems fit.

If construed the words "pass such orders as it deems fit after hearing the related objections to the draft statement", it is to be noticed that the only order, to be passed by the competent authority is to evaluate the material before it and to uphold or reject the objections.

In the light of this, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not for an objector to demolish the title of the declarant; but it is enough if the objector places the material with regard to vested title in him. As such, the respondent has no right to direct the objectors to produce the documents, which it desires. It is open to the authority on receiving the objections under Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, to decide the same on its merits and pass orders.

Mr. Chennakesavarao, the learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners do not want to produce any other documents other than what they have already submitted before the respondent along with the objections. But, the petitioners are prepared to produce the originals of the documents at the time of hearing.

In the above view, the respondent shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act, upholding or rejecting the objections.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.