Y.Bhaskar Rao, J. -
(1.)This writ appeal filed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act challenges the order of a learned single Judge allowing the writ petition and issuing a mandamus directing the appellants to consider grant of permit to the writ petitioner under Sec.26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') after quashing the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the writ petitioner therefor.
(2.)The relevant facts that gave rise to the present proceedings in brief are : The writ petitioner was a member of Navodaya Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad. The Society having entered into an agreement of sale with one Fasahatulla in respect of an extent of Ac.11-11 guntas in S.Nos.97/1,100 and 101 at Yallareddyguda, Golconda taluk, Hyderabad, filed a suit for specific performance of that agreement and pursuant to the decree obtained therein, had a registered sale-deed dated 26-8-1984 executed in its favour. In its turn, the Society executed a sale-deed in respect of plot No2 measuring an extent of 900 sq. yards, having had that land divided into plots, in favour of the petitioner on 30th April, 1985. Thereafter, the writ petitioner wanted to sell the plot to a third party and for that purpose, made an application on 14-7-1988 to the 1st appellant under Sec.26 of the Act for issue of necessary permission. That application was rejected, through the impugned order, on the ground that it could not be considered for want of previous clearance. The appellant herein filed a counter-affidavit stating therein that the lands in question in S.Nos.97/1,100 and 101 were covered by the statement filed in Form I under Sec.6(1) of the Act by Fasahatullah, the vendor to the Society, and after inquiry the declarant-Fasahatullah, was found to be surplus vacant land-holder to an extent of 51,205.67 sq. metres as per the draft statement dated 19-5-1982 prepared under Sec .8(1), and also finally as per orders made on 19-6-1982 under Sec.8(4) of the Act. It is further stated, as per Section 5(3) no person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit before commencement of the Act shall transfer such land, or a portion thereof, and any such transfer made in contravention thereof shall be deemed to be null and void. Further according to Sec.42 of the Act, any decree or order will have no effect upon the provisions of the Act. Hence, according to the Counter filed the decee of the civil Court in pursuance of which the sale-deed dated 26-8-1984 came to be registered by the Sub-Registrar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, is not valid and consequently no valid title is vested in the Society by virtue of the registered sale-deed and much less in the subsequent purchaser the writ petitioner, from the Society. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that under Sec.26 of the Act, the authority has only to consider whether it wants to purchase the land and if not to issue the permission. Aggreived of this order the appeal is brought in.
(3.)The learned Government Pleader for the appellants contended that the plot in question sought to be sold is a portion of the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit by the vendor Fasahatulla as per orders passed under Sec.8(4) of the Act, that under Sec.5(3) of the Act the said Fasahatulla is forbidden from transferring the vacant land or a portion thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise until a notification regarding the excess vacant 1and held by him has been published under Sec.10(1) and any contravention thereof would result in rendering such transfer to be null and void. Further as per Sec10(4) the prohibition is continued until the proceedings crossed the stage covered by Sec.10(3) and in the interregnum commencing from the stage of proceedings f rom Sec.10(1) to 10(3), any transfer effected of the notified vacant land or a part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise shall be deemed to be null and void. In view of these specific provisions, viz., Sec.5(3) and Sec.10(4) the proceedings in the instant case having stood at the stage covered by Sec.8(4) and not terminated by crossing the stage covered by Sec.10(3), the sale effected in favour of the society itself by Fasahatulla, may be under a decree of the Civil Court, is, according to the learned Govt. Pleader null and void, more so in the light of Sec.42 of the Act, and therefore the authorities have rightly rejected the application made under Sec.26 of the Act by the writ petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the original writ petitioner, sought to have the order under appeal sustained by contending that the only option of the authorities is to consider purchase of the vacant land covered by the application under Sec.26 of the Act and when it was not so inclined, it has no alternative except to grant the permission and therefore the writ petition was rightly allowed.