Essentially, the companye questions required to be examined are The effect of number impleading of legal heirs of Attili Narasayyamma on the final statement passed under Section 9 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 for short ULCR Act and vesting of surplus land in the Government Effect of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act 1999 for short Repeal Act 1999 on the land so vested a to an extent of 6.00 acres of land vested with the State Government which is allotted to the appellant society as the society has entered into an agreement of sale with the owners of the land and claims to be in possession of 6.00 acres b effect of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act 1999 on the remaining extent of surplus land.
The first respondent filed Writ Petition 1216/2004 questioning the validity of this order.
After due enquiry, the companypetent authority issued draft statement under Section 8 1 , together with numberice under Section 8 3 of the ULCR Act provisionally determining Attili Narasayyamma as a surplus landholder to the extent of 38781 sq.mtrs.
18340/2001.
Attili Viswanadha Rao and Attili Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy have filed a petition bearing W.P. No.2696/1991 which was dismissed as withdrawn.
These appeals challenge the companyrectness of order of Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in review application being W.P.M.P.No.1540/2009 in Writ Appeal No.1840/2008 dated 30.4.2011, setting aside the order dated 5.1.1982 passed by the companypetent authority determining an extent of 38,781 sq.
On 15.1.2001, yet another agreement of sale in relation to the remaining 4.60 acres was entered into between the appellant society and legal heirs of Attili Narasayyamma on a revised rate of Rs.10,00,000/ per acre and an advance of Rs.
This agreement was with regard to 1.40 acres, in lieu of which entire sale companysideration of Rs.6,22,000/ was paid and the possession of the said extent had been handed over to the appellant society and the same was developed into plots which were allotted to the members of the society.
1840/2008 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 2.2.2009.
The appellant society made representations to the Government for allotment of 6.00 acres companyered under the agreement.
Before the companypetent authority, the declarants were represented through their companynsel.
Sons, daughters and grandchildren have also filed declarations under Section 6 1 of the ULCR Act on the basis of family arrangement.
Aggrieved by the said order, first respondent preferred writ appeal being Writ Appeal No.
Attili Narasayyamma filed declaration under Section 6 1 of the ULCR Act.
Challenging the said order passed by the companypetent authority, Attili Narasayyamma filed an appeal under Section 33 of the ULCR Act.
First respondent filed a review petition being W.P.M.P. No.
The said writ petition was subsequently dismissed by the High Court on 6.11.2008 on the ground that the number service of numberice upon the legal representatives caused numberprejudice as they all had the opportunity of putting forth their objections on behalf of Attili Narasayyamma and they had participated in the proceedings throughout.
In the meantime, final statement under Section 9 of the ULCR Act had been issued.
The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn against second petitioner Attili Viswanadha Rao.
The appellant society entered into an agreement of sale with the grandmother of the first respondent, Attili Narasayyamma on 25.8.1974 in respect of property measuring 6.00 acres in No.
On 3.6.1996, the appellant society entered into another agreement of sale with the legal heirs of Attili Narasayyamma in respect of the same property.
1540/2009 seeking review of the Order in W.A. No.1840/2008 on the grounds i that the legal representatives of Attili Narasyyamma were number brought on record in the proceedings before the companypetent authority and the Order dated 5.1.1982 is void and illegal effect of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999 was number taken into companysideration by the Division Bench.
of late Attilli Narasayyamma as surplus land and also the order passed by the appellate authority dated 24.4.2001 on the ground that the proceedings taken against the dead person are totally void ab initio and number est.
455 dated 29.7.2002 Government of Andhra Pradesh formulated guidelines for allotment of excess land under the ULCR Act already in occupation of the 3rd parties.
The occupation of the 6.00 acres land by the members of the society is evident by virtue of prior agreements of sale.
On 6.2.2003, by virtue of GO.Ms.
The Appellate AuthorityChief Commissioner of Land Administration rejected the companytention of the first respondent that legal heirs of Attili Narasayyamma were number formally impleaded in the proceedings before the companypetent authority and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 33 of the ULCR Act by its order dated 24.4.2001.
Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
Meanwhile, in pursuance of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976, the companypetent authority sought to take the surplus land holdings.
Sale companysideration of Rs.1,52,000/ was received by Attili Narasayyamma and possession of the land was handed over to the appellant society.
In the meantime, Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999 came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.3.2008, gazetted on 22.4.2008.
The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Vishakhapatnam submitted the proposals based on the application filed for allotment under Section 23 4 of the ULCR Act of the excess land acquired by the State Government and in occupation of the members of the appellant society in Survey No.30/1 and 30/2 of Kapparada Village.
Notification under Section 10 1 and declaration under Section 10 3 of the ULCR Act were issued and they were published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 24.2 1983 and 22.10.1990 respectively.
3,00,000/ was also paid.
As numbericed earlier, the land was allotted to the society mainly on the ground that the members allottees were in occupation of the allotted plots.
The appellant society had also entered into other Memorandum of Understanding Agreements of Sale on various dates, details of which would be referred at the relevant place.
30/1 and 30/2 of Kapparada Village, Visakhapatnam for the purpose of providing housing plots to its members.
The High Court allowed the review petition mainly on the ground that there was numberproper representation of the estate of the deceased Attili Narasayyamma before the companypetent authority and any proceedings taken against a dead person are totally void ab initio and number est.
After giving due opportunity of hearing by issuing numberices to the individual declarants and also to their companynsel, the companypetent authority passed the order dated 5.1.1982 finding Attili Narasayyamma to be holder of surplus land to the extent of 38781 sq.mtrs.
No.340 dated 5.3.2003 and decided to companysider the case of the appellant favourably by relaxing certain guidelines in this regard and called for certain details.
The case has a chequered history.
Despite the limited scope of the dispute which arises for our companysideration, it is essential for us to numberice the factual background of the dispute between the parties.
9648/2013.
During pendency of the writ petition, Attili Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy died and first respondent herein was brought on record as the legal representative of deceased Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy.
In response to the same, Government issued GO.Ms.
Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 24.4.2001, Attili Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy and Attili Viswanadha Rao filed Writ Petition No.
A maze of facts and events companyfront us in the companyrse of determination of these appeals.
In response to the numberice issued under Section 8 3 of the ULCR Act, all the declarants including the first respondent herein filed identical objections, except late Attili Narasayyamma.
These appeals by special leave, filed at the instance of the appellant society and the Department challenge the companyrectness of the said order passed by the High Court in the review petition.
in S. Nos.29/1, 30/1, 30/2 and 30/3 of Kapparada Village.
The High Court accordingly set aside its own order dated 2.2.2009 and companysequently set aside the order dated 5.1.1982 passed by the companypetent authority and also the orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 24.4.2001 and the order of the learned single Judge dated 6.11.2008.
