SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. AND ANR.versusP.S. RAO

A             SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
                            U.L.C. AND ANR.
                                           v.
                                       P.S.RAO

                                  AUGUST 28, 2000
B
            [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.]


          Urban Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976:

          Ss.10 and 20-Excess land-Vesting of in State-Exemption-G. 0. dated
c   31.10.1988-Liberty to land owner to seek exemption not withstanding a
    vesting order-G. 0. upheld by Supreme Court-Application for clarification in
    respect of land possession whereof has not been taken-Held, the position has
    been clearly explained by the High Court holding that the exemption granted
    under the G.O. will be attracted to any excess land in respect of which at least
D   the proceedings under Chapter III have not come to an end.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :I.A. No. 2.

                                          IN

          Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1662 of 2000.
E
        P.P. Rao, B. Sridhar, Y. Subba Rao and Ms. L.S.P. Roopa and K. Ram
    Kumar for the Petitioner.

         Bhimrao Naik, C. Hanumantha Rao and S. Udaya Kumar Sagar for the
    Respondent.
F
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           In the order· passed by this Court on 17 .1.2000 dismissing the SLP by
    a reasoned otder, this Court held that, notwithstanding the fact that a· vesting
    order was passed under the provisions of the (Urban Land Ceiling & Regulac
G   tion) Act, 1976, it would be open to the owner of the land whose land had so
    vested, to seek exemption under the provisions of the Act. In the facts of that
    case, the G.O. issued by the Government granting exemption was issued on
    31.10.88 subsequent to the order of vesting on 5.10.87 notice for surrender was
    issued by the Government on 16.4.88 and G.0. Granting exemption was issued
H   on 31.10.1988 Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench held that the G.O.
                                          708
SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. v. P.S. RAO                   709
could be taken advantage of by the respondent even though vesting order had         A
been passed. This order was upheld by this Court against the judgment dated
17 .1.2000 mentioned above.

      The present application for clarification has been filed by the State of
Andhra Pradesh for clarifying the position as to whether if possession had not
been taken, pursuant to the order of vesting, the owner of the land had a right     B
to seek exemption from the provisions of the Act under Section 20 or under
Section 10, by virtue of the G.O. issued by the Government.
       It will be noticed that in order of the Division Bench of the High Court,
this position has been clearly explained. The Bench said that "the question of
retrospectivity of the exemption order does not really arise for the reason that    c
in the proceedings under Chapter III of the Act are still pending, may be set
the final stage". The Division Bench further observed that :
               "Be that as it may, in the present case, the exemption order which
         is of general nature is under Section 20(l)(a), and it was issued after
         the vesting order under Sec. 10(3) of the Act was published. That the      D
         exemption could be granted even after vesting, being the proposition
         definitely laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court, there is no
         reason why such exemption shall not have the effect of taking the land
         out of the purview of the Act so long as the proceedings under the
         Chapter III have not been concluded in their entirety".                    E
         The Division Bench further observed as follows :
              "This is yet another consideration, which weighs with the Court
         to hold that the exemption granted under G.O. 733 will be attracted to
         any excess land in respect of which at least the proceedings under
                                                                                    F
         Chapter III have not yet come to an end."
      We fully endorse the view expressed by the Division Bench of the High
Court as extracted above.
      We are, however, not deciding a situation where possession has been
taken over and where third party rights have not intervened.                        G
       With the above clarification, the I.A. is disposed of.

R.P.                                                            I.A. disposed of.