P. Dhana Laxmi and others vs Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Warangal and another

V. Eswaraiah, J.—This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Warangal, in issuing the final Statement u/s 9(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ''the Act'') and issuing the notifications under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and notice u/s 10(5) of the Act without passing any order u/s 8(4) of the Act as illegal.

The 1st petitioner-Smt. Dhana Laxmi, mother of petitioners 2 to 4 has filed a declaration u/s 6(1) of the Act, declaring the urban property in Sy.No.571 (new) 563 (old) admeasuring Ac.0-36 situated at Waddepally village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warrangal district. An enquiry was made and found that the petitioners are in possession of the urban land to an extent of 3,369 sq.mtrs. and a draft statement u/s 8(1) of the Act has been issued declaring that the declarant is entitled to 2,000 sq.mtrs. and an extent of 1,396 sq.mtrs. is excess surplus land. The draft statement was served on 14-11-1997 calling for the objections to be filed within 30 days and it appears that no objections have been filed, and therefore, a final statement u/s 9(1) of the Act was issued on 17-12-1977. A notification u/s 10(1) was issued and notified in the Gazette on 28-8-1980 and Notification u/s 10(3) was also issued on 3-9-1981 and subsequently notice u/s 10(5) was also issued on 28-10-1987. An appeal was also filed u/s 33 before the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Urban Land Ceiling, A.P., Hyderabad on 21-11-1981. Though the Commissioner initially granted stay of dispossession, the appeal was dismissed on 21-4-1984.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the said land is an agricultural land and they have filed certified copies of pahanies for the years 1970-71 to 1975-76 and 1980-81, 1982-83 and they are entitled for the exemption in terms of the G.O. Ms. No. 1797, dated 24-10-1978, but their case has not been considered and without passing any orders u/s 8(4) and without giving any opportunity to the declarant, final statement is issued u/s 9(1) of the Act and it is illegal and unsustainable.

A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents admitting that no orders have been passed u/s 8(4) of the Act.

The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the subsequent proceedings without passing an order u/s 8(4) of the Act are sustainable. Section 8(4) of the Act is reproduced as under:

"8. Preparation of draft statement as regard vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit:--

(1)..

(3).....

(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 sub-section and the competent authority shall, after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it deems fit."

As per Section 8(3) of the Act, draft statement shall be served on the declarant so as to enable him to file objections within 30 days of the service of the statement. If the declarant files any such objection, the Competent Authority shall consider the same and shall also give a reasonable opportunity of being heard and then pass the orders as are deemed fit. It is the contention of the Government Pleader that if no objection is filed by the declarant, the question of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard as contemplated by the Second Part of Section 8(4) does not arise. I am unable to agree with this contention for the reason that if any objection is filed or not, there is a statutory duty cast upon the Competent Authority to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass orders u/s 8(4). The proceedings u/s 8(3) is only a draft statement. If the declarant files objections, the Competent Authority cannot pass orders without hearing the objector. The declarant has got two opportunities of filing objection and as well as submitting the objections on a notified date before passing the orders u/s 8(4). If the declarant has not availed the opportunity of filing the objections, he cannot be deprived of the reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing order u/s 8(4) of the Act. Without there being any final orders passed u/s 8(4), the issuance of the final statement u/s 9(1) does not arise. The objections can be in writing to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of the draft statement u/s 8(3) or oral objections pursuant to the notice issued u/s 8(4) before passing the final order. Section 8(4) contemplates the objections to be filed by the declarant i.e., in writing within 30 days from the date of receipt of a draft statement u/s 8(3) as well as the objections to be submitted personally pursuant to the notice issued u/s 8(4) before passing of the final order. Second part of the Section 8(4) clearly contemplates that the Competent Authority after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it deems fit. After disposal of the objections submitted pursuant to the reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the declarant u/s 8(4), and orders have to be passed u/s 8(4) and then only the Competent Authority shall determine the vacant land by final statement u/s 9(1) of the Act.

As admittedly, no orders have been passed u/s 8(4) of the Act, the subsequent action and the orders of the respondent under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act are illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However, it is open for the 1st respondent to take action and pass orders u/s 8(4) of the Act after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.