Bobba Venkateswara Rao and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
property - co-operative society - section 20 (1) (a) of urban land (ceiling and regulation) act, 1976 - members of co-operative society entered into agreement to purchase land for purpose of construction of house - exemption claimed by members by way of application under section 20 (1) (a) rejected by government without furnishing opportunity of being heard - held, government to reconsider matter afresh after providing opportunity of being heard. - - thandur's case (supra). since the construction of section 20(1)(b) of the act in vasudeva's case (supra) is no longer good law, the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to reconsider the whole issue afresh, in the light of the judgment in t.order1. this writ petition is filed by the members of the society who have entered into an agreement to purchase the land with smt. k. achamamba who was the original owner of the land. in writ petition no.806.3 of 1995 filed by the legal representatives of smt. k. achamamba, i have referred to the facts and disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider her application for exemption under section 20(1)(a) of the urban land ceiling act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by a separate order, to-day itself. this writ petition is filed by the members of the co-operative society who have entered into an agreement with smt. k. achamamba for the purchase of the land for the purpose of construction of houses. the petitioners are three in number in the writ petition. they filed an application for exemption under section 20(1)(b) of the act on 22-3-1982. the exemption claim was rejected by g.o.ms. no.964 of 1983. the same was challenged in this court and this court quashed g.o.ms. no.964 as illegal and directed the government to consider individual applications independently. thereafter, the application filed by the society was rejected without giving the society an opportunity relying on the judgment of the supreme court in the case of s. vasudeva v. state of karnataka, : [1993]2scr715 , on the ground that under section 20(1)(b), no exemption can be granted on the ground of hardship. aggrieved by the orders of the government dated 6-7-1994, some of the members have filed the present writ petition.2. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has brought to my notice the judgment of the supreme court in t.r. thandur v. union of india, air 1996 scw 1700, wherein the correctness of the judgment in s. vasudeva's case (supra) was considered and it was held that it was not correctly decided. therefore, the learned counsel submitted that, in view of the judgment in thandur's case (supra) the respondents have to consider their applications for the purpose of exemption under section 20(1)(b)20(1)(b) of the act. he also submittedthat since their exemption applications were rejected without issuing any notice, there is violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, it should be remitted back to the 1st respondent to consider its case in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment of the supreme court in t.r. thandur 's case (supra). the question, therefore, is, what is the relief that is to be granted to the petitioners. it is true that the society has not filed the writ petition but it is only the members of the society who have filed the writ petition. however, the application for exemption filed by the society has been rejected without giving the society an opportunity of being heard. therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. the petitioners who are the members of the society aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent, are entitled to canvass the correctness of the judgment or orders of the government. it is not disputed that no notice was issued to the co-operative society while rejecting their application for exemption. further, the judgment of the supreme court in vasudeva's case (supra) relied upon by the respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for exemption has now been overruled in t.r. thandur's case (supra). while holding that vasudeva's case (supra) has not been correctly decided, the supreme court observed that,'it follows form the above discussion that the conclusion reached in s. vasudeva (supra), which directly relates to section 20(1)(b) of the act, is not based on a correct construction of section 20 of the act. the application of the conclusion in relation to clause (a)of sub-section (1) of section 20 by the government of karnataka is not justified even by that decision. the provisions of section 20 of the act and the effect of an exemption granted under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 20, including the incidence of transfer, have to be understood in the manner indicated by us herein. for the reasons given by us, we regret our inabilityto concur with the contrary conclusion reached by the two learned judges in s. vasudeva (supra). the impugned order to the extent it is contrary to the view taken by us in this decision, cannot be upheld.'3. from the above, it is clear that the kamataka high court following vasudeva's case (supra) passed orders under section 20(1)(b) which was set aside in the light of the view taken by them in t. r. thandur's case (supra). since the construction of section 20(1)(b) of the act in vasudeva's case (supra) is no longer good law, the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to reconsider the whole issue afresh, in the light of the judgment in t.r. thandur's case (supra) opportunity should be afforded to the co-operative society which has entered into an agreement with the original owner smt. k. achamamba.4. with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. the respondents are directed to reconsider the matter afresh within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity to the president and secretary of the cooperative society and the petitioners. the 1st respondent is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners and the co-operative society along with the cases of the owners of the land i.e., the petitioners in writ petition no.8063 of 1995. status-quo as on to-day should continue till final orders are passed by the government. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the members of the Society who have entered into an agreement to purchase the land with Smt. K. Achamamba who was the original owner of the land. In Writ Petition No.806.3 of 1995 filed by the legal representatives of Smt. K. Achamamba, I have referred to the facts and disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider her application for exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by a separate order, to-day itself. This writ petition is filed by the members of the Co-operative Society who have entered into an agreement with Smt. K. Achamamba for the purchase of the land for the purpose of construction of houses. The petitioners are three in number in the writ petition. They filed an application for exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the Act on 22-3-1982. The exemption claim was rejected by G.O.Ms. No.964 of 1983. The same was challenged in this Court and this Court quashed G.O.Ms. No.964 as illegal and directed the Government to consider individual applications independently. Thereafter, the application filed by the Society was rejected without giving the Society an opportunity relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Vasudeva v. State of Karnataka, : [1993]2SCR715 , on the ground that under Section 20(1)(b), no exemption can be granted on the ground of hardship. Aggrieved by the orders of the Government dated 6-7-1994, some of the members have filed the present writ petition.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has brought to my notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.R. Thandur v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SCW 1700, wherein the correctness of the judgment in S. Vasudeva's case (supra) was considered and it was held that it was not correctly decided. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that, in view of the judgment in Thandur's case (supra) the respondents have to consider their applications for the purpose of exemption under Section 20(1)(b)20(1)(b) of the Act. He also submittedthat since their exemption applications were rejected without issuing any notice, there is violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, it should be remitted back to the 1st respondent to consider its case in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.R. Thandur 's case (supra). The question, therefore, is, what is the relief that is to be granted to the petitioners. It is true that the Society has not filed the writ petition but it is only the members of the Society who have filed the writ petition. However, the application for exemption filed by the Society has been rejected without giving the Society an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners who are the members of the Society aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent, are entitled to canvass the correctness of the judgment or orders of the Government. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the Co-operative Society while rejecting their application for exemption. Further, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Vasudeva's case (supra) relied upon by the respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for exemption has now been overruled in T.R. Thandur's case (supra). While holding that Vasudeva's case (supra) has not been correctly decided, the Supreme Court observed that,

'It follows form the above discussion that the conclusion reached in S. Vasudeva (supra), which directly relates to Section 20(1)(b) of the Act, is not based on a correct construction of Section 20 of the Act. The application of the conclusion in relation to Clause (a)of sub-section (1) of Section 20 by the Government of Karnataka is not justified even by that decision. The provisions of Section 20 of the Act and the effect of an exemption granted under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 20, including the incidence of transfer, have to be understood in the manner indicated by us herein. For the reasons given by us, we regret our inabilityto concur with the contrary conclusion reached by the two learned Judges in S. Vasudeva (supra). The impugned order to the extent it is contrary to the view taken by us in this decision, cannot be upheld.'

3. From the above, it is clear that the Kamataka High Court following Vasudeva's case (supra) passed orders under Section 20(1)(b) which was set aside in the light of the view taken by them in T. R. Thandur's case (supra). Since the construction of Section 20(1)(b) of the Act in Vasudeva's case (supra) is no longer good law, the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to reconsider the whole issue afresh, in the light of the judgment in T.R. Thandur's case (supra) opportunity should be afforded to the Co-operative Society which has entered into an agreement with the original owner Smt. K. Achamamba.

4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to reconsider the matter afresh within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity to the President and Secretary of the Cooperative Society and the petitioners. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners and the Co-operative Society along with the cases of the owners of the land i.e., the petitioners in Writ Petition No.8063 of 1995. Status-quo as on to-day should continue till final orders are passed by the Government. No costs.