WP/19996/2008 of State Bank of India, Rehabilitation AND Recovery Branch, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, on 31 December 2008

1. Challenging the common order dated 30-06-2008 passed by theDebt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in R.A.Nos. 6, 5, 4, 11, 8, 7, 9,and 10 of 2008 respectively and also seeking a writ of Mandamus todeclare the G.O.Ms.No.154 of 2005, dated. 22.7.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.No.1882 of 2005 dated. 8-11-2005 and the consequent proceedingsdated 18-11-2005 issued by the 2[nd] respondent as unconstitutional,illegal, arbitrary, and malafide, the above writ petitions have been filed.2. Since all these writ petitions arise out of a common order in theRecovery Appeals, and the question that arises for consideration iscommon, both the counsel in these writ petitions agreed for finaldisposal together by a common order.

3. Though separate writ petitions are filed against the commonorder, it is relevant to note the averments in W.P. No. 19857 of 2008since the averments in all the writ petitions are similar. The present writpetition is filed against the orders passed by the Debt RecoveryTribunal dated 30-6-2008 in R.A. No. 6 of 2008, wherein the DebtsRecovery Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner bankin RA Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 of 2008 against the orders ofRecovery Officer dated 29-8-2007 in C.P. Nos.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,24 & 25 of 2007.

4. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal ofthe case, are as follows:

The petitioner bank filed O.A. No. 398 of 2000 on the file of DebtsRecovery Tribunal, Hyderabad for recovery of its dues from respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and the same was allowed and a RecoveryCertificate was issued on 20-01-2004 for recovery ofRs.41,04,40,050.79ps, that the Recovery Officer issued demandnotices and published in the news papers and at the instance of thepetitioner, attached the petition schedule property on the ground thatthey belonged to 7[th] respondent herein, who was 2[nd] defendant in theO.A. Against the said attachment order, claim petition was filed by 5[th]respondent claiming title over the property attached on the ground thatoriginally the schedule property belonged to one Smt H Santha andshe sold the said property to 7[th] respondent herein and he (R5)purchased the said property from R7 and applied for regularization oftitle as per G O Ms. No. 455 Rev. (U C II) Department dated 29-7-2002,and notice under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act, 1976 was issued by 1[st] respondent that the petitionschedule land is deemed to have been acquired with effect from 6-8-2005. It is also the case of the petitioner bank that it opposed theClaim Petition on the ground that the land owned by 7[th] respondent isan agricultural land and therefore it is not a vacant land within themeaning of Section 2 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act1976 and that the G O Ms No. 455 of 2002 is not applicable andtherefore the entire proceedings in respect of the said land are illegal. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Recovery Officer allowed theclaim petition on 29-08-2007 through a common order in respect ofeight claim petitions in favour of the claimants. Aggrieved against thesaid order, the petitioner bank filed Recovery Appeals before DebtsRecovery Tribunal, Hyderabad i.e., 9[th] respondent herein, but thesame were dismissed on 30-06-2008 through a common order in 8consecutive appeals. Questioning the said order of the DebtsRecovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in R.A.No. 6 of 2008, the present writpetition is filed.

5. It is stated by the petitioner/bank that it filed O.A. No. 398/2000

5. It is stated by the petitioner/bank that it filed O.A. No. 398/2000

for recovery of all the dues and subsequent to the allowing of O.A, theRecovery Certificate was issued on 20-01-2004 for the amount of Rs.41,04,40,050-79 p.s. A demand notice was also issued by theRecovery Officer published in the newspapers. Subsequently, theproperty covered under bit No.1 was claimed under C.P. Nos. 18, 19,23, and 24 of 2007 corresponding to R.A. Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 of 2008,and the property covered under bit No.3 was claimed under C.P. Nos.20, 21, 22 and 25 of 2007 corresponding to Recovery Appeals Nos. 4,5, 10 and 11 of 2008. However, the bit No.1 property was attached atthe instance of petitioner bank on 11-1-2007 and bit No. 3 property on5-12-2005 by the Recovery Officer on assumption that the saidproperties belonged to the 7[th] respondent in WP No.19857 of 2008(2[nd] defendant in the main O.A), who is the certificate debtor No.2 inthe recovery certificate.

6. The claimants in the claim petitions filed the claims seeking toraise the attachments on the ground that originally the propertybelonged to one Smt. H Santha, from whom one Jayadev (R7 herein)had purchased the property on 7-12-1994, who in turn sold the same to5[th] respondent herein on 23-11-2004. The claim petitioner in C.P. No.23 of 2007 (R5 herein) states that it purchased the schedule land for avalid consideration and was put in possession of the land in bit Nos.1& 3, that thereafter it came to know that original owner of the scheduleland H Shanta was determined as surplus holder and that by virtue ofthe notification issued under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act published inGazette No.154 dated. 22.7.2005 the said surplus land including theschedule land was vested with the Government, that on coming toknow of the same, the petitioner approached the Government forallotment of the land in its favour by virtue of the scheme for allotmentof surplus land, on payment of land price as stipulated in G O Ms.No.455, Revenue (UC 1) dept., dated 29-7-2002, that after dueprocess of enquiry, the government allotted the schedule land to itvide G O Ms. No.1882 (UC-2) dept. 8-11-2005, and the Special Officer and Competent Authority ULC, Hyderabad issued endorsementproceedings dated. 18/11/2005 and therefore it perfected its title overthe schedule land. It is also the case of the claim petitioner (R5) that itis not a party to the Recovery Proceedings and it does not suffer anydecree in O.A.No.398 of 2000 and therefore the attachment order is notbinding on it, and no charge was created over the schedule land infavour of writ petitioner bank. It is the further case of the claimpetitioner that neither the Debt Recovery Tribunal nor the RecoveryOfficer has jurisdiction to attach the schedule land and therefore theattachment dated. 11.01.2007 and consequential proceedings arevoid, inoperative and without jurisdiction.

7. From the pleadings of both parties, it is seen that one Mrs. HSantha was the owner of certain land and she sold an extent of 3740sq. yards equivalent to Ac 0.30.9 guntas to one Jayadev (R7) undersale deed dated. 7-12-1994. The said Jayadev (R7) subsequently soldthe land to various claimants on 23-11-2004. However, it is contendedthat Recovery Certificates were issued by the Debts RecoveryTribunal in O.A. No. 398 of 2000 on 20-01-2004 and also demandnotices were issued by the Recovery Officer under Rule 2 of SecondSchedule to Income Tax Act 1993 on 30-01-2004. On 24-6-2005 theNotification was issued under Section 9 of Urban Land (Ceiling &Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and thepossession was taken over by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 22-7-2005. As 5[th] respondent was in possession of theland in pursuance of its purchase of the same, it made an applicationthrough 2[nd] respondent for the allotment of the same under Section 23of the Act on 27-2-2005 and after enquiry, the government afterpayment of the consideration, allotted the schedule land in its favourthrough G O Ms.No. 1882 (UC-2) Dept., dated 8-11-2005 and theSpecial Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad issuedendorsement proceedings dated 18-11-2005 mentioning the details ofthe schedule land.

8. A counter has been filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent i.e.,Spl.Deputy collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad inW.P.No.19858 of 2008 stating that a certificate under Section 2(o) ofthe Act was issued in respect of the Sy.Nos. 122 to 125 situated atGachibowli village in C.C.file No. C5/26/81 on 05-05-81, wherein it ismentioned that the declarant H Santha sold certain extents of land inSy. No.124 and 125 in favour of Fertilizer Corporation of IndiaEmployees Co-operative Housing Society on 24-7-1981 and the saidSociety, in turn, sold the property to its member in the year 1981, inviolation of the provisions U/s. 2(o). It is also stated that the declarantSmt. Santha has changed the use of the land and hence the sales ofthe land are not in consonance with the provisions of the ULC Act andas such it has to be declared as null and void even though thegovernment has taken it as a surplus land.

9. It is also stated in the counter that the C.P.Nos 18, 19, 23and 24 2007 were filed by objection petitioners pertaining to bit No.1property admeasuring Ac 0-30.9 guntas and the subject matter in CPNos. 20,21,22 and 25 of 2007 pertaining to bit 3 admeasuring Ac 0.31guntas situated at Gachibowli area. It is contended that even thoughthe recovery certificate dated 20-1-2004 was issued by the DebtsRecovery Tribunal in O.A. No.398/2004 for Rs. 41,04,40,050-79, theremission notices under Rule 2 of Schedule-II of Income Tax Act wereissued but the same were not served on the defendants (objectionpetitioners). The attachment order was passed at the request ofapplicant bank for bit No.3 property on 5-12-2005 and for bit no.1property on 11-1-2007.

10. The respondent No.5 herein also filed a counter taking a similarstand to that taken by the 2[nd] respondent and states that it did notmortgage the disputed properties to the petitioner bank and hence thepetitioner bank has no right to attach the properties. It is also stated inthe counter that since the company had purchased the same from the

Government and possession was also taken from it and got title overthe said properties, the petitioner bank has no right to seek thecancellation of the government orders issued in this regard from time totime.

10. It is submitted by Mr K Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner bank that the declaration filed byMrs. Santha is an invalid declaration and the Government should nothave acted upon it and that it should not have issued G.O. Ms. No.154,dated. 22[nd] July 2005. The Notification, under sub-Sec. (1) of Section10 stating that the land is deemed to have been acquired by the StateGovernment, is without following the mandatory procedure prescribedunder the Act, and that the procedure under Section 10 can only beinvoked after compliance of Section 9 of U L C Act. It is also submittedby the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner bank that the claimants only to avoid repayment of debt due to the bank, tookshelter under cover of the issue of GOMs No.1882 of 2005 which isillegal and issued without following the prescribed procedure andtherefore the G.Os issued by the government in respect of the propertyin bit Nos.1 and 3 are illegal. The learned counsel also submitted thatthe Debt Recovery Tribunal failed to appreciate and consider theseaspects and based on presumptions and assumptions, dismissed theappeals filed by the bank and therefore the impugned order of theDebts Recovery Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

11. The counsel for the petitioner bank has submitted that thedeclaration filed by Mrs. Santha for Survey Nos. 122 to 125 is not avalid declaration for the reason that she filed the declaration that theland in question only is an ‘agricultural land’ and the government in itsNotification No.154 dated 22-7-2005 have determined under section 9of the Act, as excess ‘vacant land’ under section 10(7) (3) in Sy.Nos.122 to 125, situated at Gachi bowli and that the Government has nopower to declare the agricultural land as a vacant land and thegovernment should not have allotted the excess land under G.O.Ms.No. No.455 dated. 29-7-2002 to 5[th] respondent and learnedcounsel also contended that even though it is not a mortgagedproperty but still the bank can question the proceedings under ULC Actand also the consequential allotment to 5[th] respondent by virtue ofG.O.Ms.No. No.455 dated. 29-7-2002 and as the Debt RecoveryTribunal has no power what-so-ever to quash the said GOs thepetitioner bank has chosen to file the present writ petition as the 7[th]respondent is due to it an amount of nearly rupees 41.00 crores andhence the property has to be attached.

12. It is also contended that in a prior instance, a notice wasissued, but as no acknowledgment was received by the petitionerbank, the same was got published through ‘Skyline’ Englishnewspaper by way of substituted service and therefore the attachmentgot by the bank is valid.

13. Learned senior counsel Mr C Prakash Reddy, appearing onbehalf of the unofficial respondents/claim petitioners strenuouslycontended that when the attachment orders were issued, the claimantsfiled claim petitions seeking to raise the attachment on the ground thatthe properties were not mortgaged to the petitioner bank, more so,having purchased the lands from 5[th] respondent, on their requests theGovernment also regularized their sales by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.No.455, dated. 29-7-2002. Accepting the contention of all the claimpetitioners, the R.As were rightly dismissed by the Debts RecoveryTribunal through the impugned proceedings and therefore, the writpetitions are liable to be dismissed.

14. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the claimpetitions were filed to recall the attachment orders dated 5-12-2005and 11-1-2007 against the properties covered by bit nos. 1 and 3respectively. It is also submitted that Jayadev (R7) sold the propertiesto R5 and other claim petitioners through various sale deeds on 23-11-2004. Then, subsequent to the purchase only the claim petitionerscame to know that ULC proceedings were issued by the Government declaring the schedule land along with some other land as surplusvacant land and the authorities also issued Notification throughG.O.Ms.No. No.154 under section 10(1) and (3) of the ULC Act andalso declared that the surplus land is deemed to have been acquiredby the State and vests absolutely with the State free from allencumbrances. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel forthe respondents that the claim petitioners have made applications forallotment of the said land to them and accordingly Government hadissued G.O.Ms. No.1882 dated 8-11-2005 allotting the same in theirfavour and therefore the allotment made by the Government shall bethe conclusive proof of title of the claim petitioners. The name of claimpetitioner i.e., respondent No.5 herein was mutated in revenue recordsand the claim petitioner i.e., unofficial respondent (R5) has availedterm loan from State Bank of Mysore.

15. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitionerbank has no right what so ever to question the Urban Land Ceilingproceedings, which attained finality, as the said land has been vestedwith the Government absolutely and it has every power to distribute theland to any person. Further, as per the scheme formulated by theGovernment under G.O.Ms.No. No.455 dated 29-07-2002 for allotmentof excess lands in favour of persons who are in possession of the saidlands, by that date, the 5[th] respondent/claim petitioner approached theGovernment for allotment of the disputed land in its favour and theGovernment after satisfying the conditions mentioned in the said G.O.,allotted the said land to 5[th] respondent and therefore the 5[th]respondent got perfected his title. The allotment has been made onpayment of the value as fixed under G.O.Ms.No. No.455 and more so,it is not a mortgaged property and therefore the bank has no right whatso ever to proceed against the property and also to question thedeclaration made by Santha.

During the course of hearing of the writ petitions, the petitioner bank had filed a petition in WPMP No.30676/2008 to receive amaterial paper i.e., the letter dated 20-10-2008 issued by the RecoveryOfficer to the petitioner. In the said letter, the Recovery Officer hasstated that the Demand Notices were ordered and sent to defendantNo.1 and 3 i.e., M/s. Rank Industries ltd., and Shri K Srinivas Rao, butthey were returned undelivered. In respect of demand notice sent toDefendant No.2 Shri S Jayadev, the Tribunal has not received thereturned cover and subsequently publication of Demand Notices wasordered for all the three defendants and it was published in “Skyline”English Daily.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.5submitted that, for the first time, in the writ proceedings, the saidcontention has been raised by the petitioner bank stating that eventhough notices were sent, neither they were served noracknowledgement was filed, but they did not raise the said pointbefore the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the recovery proceedings or inthe claim petitions and hence the contents of the said letter cannot bea basis to interfere with in the writ petition.

18. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would rely onthe provision under Section 23 of the Act, and submits that theGovernment has every right and power to dispose of the vacant landacquired under the Act and coming to the facts of the case on hand,the government, after acquiring the land from one H Santha, in excessof ceiling limit, by way of Notification under this Act, allotted the sameto the claimants herein through the government orders after followingthe due procedure and therefore the petitioner bank has no right whatso ever to challenge the G.Os issued by the government in this regard.

19. Heard the counsel on either side and also the learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue and perused the material availableon record. From the material papers annexed to the writ petition it isseen that one Mrs. H Santha had filed declaration under Urban Land(Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 in Form No.I stating that an extent of Ac 39.03 guntas in Sy.No. 122 to 125 belonging to her situate inGachibowli village, apart from the lands in Sy.Nos. 79, 80, 89, 90, 91,92 and 124 to an extent of Ac 12.00 situated at Nalagandla village issurplus agricultural land and thereafter the Government after dueenquiry found that the said Santha sold away an extent of Ac 20.00 inSy.Nos. 124 and 125 in favour of Fertilizer Corporation of IndiaEmployees Co-op. Housing Society on 24-07-1981, who in turn soldthe property to its members, and that for the remaining extents, thegovernment after issuing Section 8(1) draft notification and calling forobjections from the declarant and after issuing final notification undersection 8(4) of the Act, and following the procedure prescribed underthe Act, determined the said land as surplus area. So far as thecontention of the petitioner bank that Santha had no power what-so-ever to sell the agricultural land as a vacant land and the governmentto declare it as a vacant land, it is to be observed that the SupremeCourt had an occasion to interpret the provisions of Section 2(o) ofUrban Land Ceiling Act in State of U.P vs., Nand Kumar Aggarwal andothers[[1]],and has observed that “agriculture” under the explanation toclause ‘(o)’ has limited meaning but does not include cultivation ofevery type of vegetation or rearing of animals or birds. At para 6 of theabove judgment, the apex court observed that ;

“6. In the master plan the area in question is no doubt shown asagriculture. If we refer to the Schedule mentioned in the definitionof urban agglomeration it could be seen that the area in questionfalls within urban agglomeration as it is situated within theperipheral area of the Municipal Corporation of Lucknow (LucknowNagar Mahapalika). The land in question will not be urban land ifthough situated within the limits of an urban agglomeration, it ismainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Operating of a bhattacannot certainly be an agriculture purpose. Mr Rohtagi, learnedcounsel for the 1st respondent, submitted that explanation toclause (o) shows as (sic) what is not included in agriculture andsince bhatta is not one of the entries therein it would mean thatoperating bhatta would be an agriculture purpose. We do not findany substance in the submission. It is correct that the land in question is entered in the revenue record but at the same time therecord shows that the land is being used for bhatta. The foremostquestion is: If the land in question though agricultural was beingmainly used for the purpose of agriculture on the appointed day?Seeing the definitions as set out above and the affidavit of the 1strespondent dated 13-8-1976 the answer is obvious that the land inquestion is not being mainly used for the purpose of agriculture.Agriculture under the explanation to clause (o) has limitedmeaning. It includes horticulture but does not include cultivation ofevery type of vegetation or rearing of animals or birds. That apart,to hold that land is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture it isnot enough even if the land is entered in the revenue recordsbefore the appointed day used for the purpose of agriculture oreven if so entered the master plan gives purpose of the land otherthan agriculture. In the present case though (B) and (C) to theexplanation are satisfied but (A) is not as the purpose to which theland, though agriculture and so entered in the revenue records,was being used for running of brick kiln. The High Court was not,therefore, correct in holding that the land was being mainly usedfor the purpose of agriculture merely on the strength of thepurpose in master plan which is specified as agriculture (krishibhumi) and that the land is entered in the revenue records. TheHigh Court has wrongly applied Explanation B to clause (o) ofSection 2 of the Act. Simply because land is entered in therevenue record would not mean that it is being used mainly for thepurpose of agriculture. Here the land is mainly used for thepurpose of brick kiln business of the 1st respondent. It is notmaterial if a small portion of the land was being used for thepurpose of agriculture as well.

In the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court, the abovecontention of the petitioner that the agricultural land cannot be sold asvacant land has no merit.20. The further contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that procedure as contemplated under the Act is notfollowed before issuing the impugned G.Os. In this connection, it isnecessary to state that the declarant in response to the draft statementunder section 8(1), has stated ‘no objection’ by filing a petition on21.05.2005 and hence the order under Section 8(4) and final statementunder Section 9 of the U L C Act were issued on 04-06-2005,

confirming the draft notification without any alterations. It is alsosubmitted that after completing the formalities under the U L (C&R) Act,1976, the Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 20-06-2005 and got published in A.P. Gazettee No. 123 dated 24-06-2005and after publication of above notification, declaration under Section10(3) of the Act, was issued on 21-07-2005 and got published in A.P.Gazettee No. 154 dated 22-07-2005 vesting the surplus land with theGovernment free from all encumbrances w. e. f. 6-8-2005. It is statedthat the enquiry officer has taken possession of the surplus land on 30-01-2006 under section 10(6) of the Act and handed over it to theM.R.O. The material on record would go to show that the governmentafter following due procedure as laid down under the Act only,determined the land as vacant land and thereafter as per the powervested with it, allotted the same in favour of the claimants since theyare in possession of the land. Therefore, the contention of thepetitioner bank has no force to stand.

21. In-so-far as the contention of the petitioner that agriculturalland cannot be declared as vacant, and the certificate under section 2(o) cannot be issued with regard to the usage of the land asagricultural land, which was sold as housing plots, the GovernmentPleader relied upon an unreported judgment in W.P. No. 10103 of1985 (between Sulakshana Bai vs., Government of A.P., Hyderabad,)wherein it was held that change of user inevitably attracts explanation(2) to Section 6 read with section 2(q) and 2(o) of the Act. Further inthe case between State of U.P and Nand Kumar, (cited supra) theApex Court also held that merely because the land was entered in therevenue records and shown in Master Plan as agricultural land, itwould not mean that it was being mainly used for agricultural purposesand it is not material if a small portion of the land was being used forthe purpose of agriculture as well. So in the light of the aboveobservations, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerbank that the Government should not have acted upon the declaration filed by Mrs. H Santha, has no basis and accordingly fails.

filed by Mrs. H Santha, has no basis and accordingly fails.

The next question that remains is whether the Government hasnot followed the procedure laid down under Sections 3 to 8 of the Actin this case. It is seen from the record that the Government has issuedsection 8(1) Notification calling for the objections of the delcarant andthe declarant H. Santha had filed petition on 21.2.1995 stating ‘noobjection’ for determination of the surplus land and final order wasissued confirming the draft statement under section 8(1) and aNotification under Section 10(1) was issued in G.O.Ms. No. No. 123dated 24-06-2005 and after publication of Section. 10(1) Notification and 10(3) Notification and got published in A.P. Gazettee No. 154dated 22-07-2005 vesting the surplus land with the Government, theEnquiry Officer had taken over possession and handed over the sameto M.R.O 30.01.2006. Under the above circumstances and in view ofthe above procedure followed by the Government, it has to beobserved that it is not open for the bank to contend that theGovernment has not followed the procedure as prescribed under U.L.CAct in determining the surplus land, more so, when there is no materialplaced before this Court by the petitioner bank that land purchased by5[th] respondent and sold to 7[th] respondent is mortgaged to the bank. Inthe absence of such material that plots have been mortgaged to thebank, the bank cannot contend that they have power to attach theproperties.

22. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for thepetitioner bank is that if the G.Os as issued by the Government arequashed, it enables the bank to proceed against the attachedproperties. In this case, it is to be observed that R7 sold the property toR5 and more so the Government also has acted upon the declarationfiled by Santha and the surplus land has been declared andpossession was also taken by the Government and the said landvested absolutely with the Government. Therefore, the Governmentbecame the owner of the said property which is a part of land in Sy.

No. 122, 124 and 125 and R5 who is a subsequent purchaser was inpossession of the land, and according to the 5[th] respondent, it paid themarket fee for allotment of the land and accordingly the governmenthas allotted the land in its favour and a certificate was also issuedconferring the title. So, under the above facts and circumstances, evenif the contention of the petitioner bank is accepted and if the G Osissued in this case under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Actproceedings are quashed, no purpose would be served to the bank asthe land vested with the Government and the government wouldbecome absolute owner. However, since at no point of time, the bankcontended that allotment is bad, now at this stage, the bank cannotquestion the same.

23. As regards the power of the Government to allot the excessland, we have perused Section 23 of the U L (C&R) Act, 1976, which reads as follows:

“23. Disposal of vacant land acquired under the Act ( 1) It shallbe competent for the State Government to allot, by order, inexcess of the ceiling limit any vacant land which is deemed tohave been acquired by the state Government under this Act oris acquired by the State Government under any other law, toany person for any purpose relating to, or in connection with,any industry or for providing residential accommodation of suchtype as may be approved by the State Government to theemployees of any industry and it shall be lawful for such personto hold such land in excess of the ceiling limit.be competent for the State Government to allot, by order, inexcess of the ceiling limit any vacant land which is deemed tohave been acquired by the state Government under this Act oris acquired by the State Government under any other law, toany person for any purpose relating to, or in connection with,any industry or for providing residential accommodation of suchtype as may be approved by the State Government to theemployees of any industry and it shall be lawful for such personto hold such land in excess of the ceiling limit.

Explanation: for the purpose of this section- (a)xxxxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxxxx

(2), (3), (4), and (5) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

In view of the above provision under the Act, the Government, by wayof an order, is competent to allot any vacant land in excess of theceiling limit which is deemed to have been acquired by the stateGovernment under this Act or under any other law, to any person. Insofar as the disputed land relating to the case on hand, admittedly,the said land is acquired by the government from one H Santha, after following the procedure as contemplated under the Act, and on anapplication made by the respective claim petitioners, who are inpossession of the land having purchased bonafide from R7, who inturn purchased from the original owner Mrs. Santha, allotted certainextents to them through its orders, which, in our opinion, cannot bequestioned by the petitioner bank. Further, the disputed land in bitNo.1 and 3 are not mortgaged to the petitioner bank and therefore thepetitioner bank cannot have any charge over the same and as suchraising of attachment by the Tribunal is not illegal.

24. The next contention raised by Mr C Prakash Reddy,learned senior counsel for unofficial respondents is that for the firsttime, the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court in this writ petition,about notice issued by the Recovery Officer in D R T proceedings. But, however, there is no documentary evidence produced before thiscourt that the notices have been issued and served on the respondentsand the copy of the acknowledgment has been filed before theTribunal. Though during the previous hearings the counsel for thepetitioner bank has taken time to file documents to support hiscontention that notices have been issued, however, a letter addressedby the Recovery Officer to the Dy. General Manager, S.B.I, recoveryand Reconciliation Branch, Secunderabad has been filed before thisCourt to show that the demand notices were ordered and sent to D1and D3 and as the acknowledgements were not received by it, they gotpublished the notice in “skyline” Engilsh newspaper by way ofsubstituted service under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It is to be observed that the procedure adopted for issuance of notice isthe procedure laid down in C.P.C. and there is no material placedbefore this Court that the notices have been served on the presentrespondents and the respondents have not claimed the same. In theabsence of such material, the said contention of the petitioner bankthat they have issued notices and the same were not received by theother side cannot sustain. That apart, in the absence of any material

placed before this Court that the disputed property is mortgaged to thebank, the bank has no right what-so-ever to question the Urban LandCeiling G.Os issued by the government from time to time.

26. For the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality in theG.Os issued by the Government in this case from time to time and inthe absence of any material that the disputed property is mortgaged tothe petitioner bank, we have no hesitation to hold that the raising of theattachments by the Recovery Officer which is affirmed by the DebtsRecovery Tribunal is perfectly legal and the impugned order needs nointerference. No case is made out by the petitioner bank to quash theimpugned G.Os.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Each party do bear itsown costs.

Further, W.P. Nos. 19858; 19859; 19991; 19993; 19996; 20002and 20004 of 2008 are also filed challenging the common order dated30-06-2008; the question arising in these writ petitions is similar to thequestion raised in W.P.No. 19857 of 2008. In view of the reasonsmentioned in W.P.No. 19857 of 2008, these writ petitions are alsoliable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are alsodismissed. No costs.

_____________________

T MEENA KUMARI J

_______________________

G BHAVANI PRASAD J

Date:31-12-2008kvrk

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIand THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD

Writ Petition Nos.: 19857; 19858, 19859, 19991, 19993, 19996,20002 and 20004 of 2008 (Common Order of the Division Bench delivered bythe Hon’ble Smt. Justice T Meena Kumari)

31[st] December 2008