THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1841 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioners, who are nine in number, obtained a Rule from the Court calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari cannot be issued after calling for records in proceedings No.B1/8835/76, dated 04.01.1982 of the third respondent- Special Officer cum Competent Authority, as confirmed by the second respondent-Commissioner of Appeals in ULC Appeal No.Hyd/102/96, dated 11.09.2002 and to quash the same. It is the case of the petitioners that their fathers, namely, Burra Jangaiah, Burra Kadaiah and Burra Ramaiah respectively are the absolute owners and possessors of land in an extent of Ac.14.01 guntas situated in Survey Nos.14, 15 and 16 of Sikendarguda Village, Rajendra Nagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. To meet their family necessities, their fathers during their lifetime, have sold an extent of Ac.12.35 guntas of land to the sixth respondent under registered sale deed bearing document No.680/1964 dated 01.12.1964. It is stated that the petitioners being the legal heirs succeeded the remaining property of Acs.1.06 guntas out of Ac.14.01 guntas and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute. On the advent of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’), the sixth respondent filed a statement before the third respondent under Section 6(1) of the Act declaring the properties held by him in Hyderabad. In the said statement, at column No.6 it is clearly mentioned about the particulars of the vacant land purchased by him as Ac.12.35 guntas under registered sale deed vide document No.680 of 1964. The third respondent-Special Officer and Competent Authority vide proceedings in C.C.No.B.1/8835, dated 28.04.1982 confirmed the order issued under Section 8(1) of the Act, as no objections were filed by the sixth respondent-declarant and accordingly passed final orders under Section 8(4) of the Act holding that during the enquiry it was revealed that the declarant purchased an extent of Ac.14.01 guntas of land out of Survey Nos.14, 15 and 16 of Sikandarguda Village from B.Jangaiah and 14 others through registered sale deed dated 01.12.1964; that the holding of the declarant is 60,006.75 square meters; that he is entitled to retain an extent of 3240.23 square meters and that he is holding surplus land to an extent of 56,766.52 square meters. Objecting the inclusion of Ac.1.06 guntas of land, which is covered by graveyards of the family members of the petitioners, in the holdings of the declarant, the petitioners filed an appeal before the second respondent-Commissioner under Section 33 (1) of the Act. The second respondent by order dated 11.09.2002 observed that out of total extent of Ac.14.01 guntas of land in Survey Nos.14, 15 and 16, an extent of Ac.1.06 guntas is covered by Potekharab and the balance area is Ac.12.35 guntas; that Potekharab is a piece of land, which is unfit for cultivation and is covered by field bunds etc., and it will be in a scattered manner; that the Potekharab position cannot be found in a compact block; that probably, due to this reason, the extent covered by the sale transaction was mentioned as Ac.12.35 guntas, which was fit for cultivation as per Revenue Record; that the Competent Authority, however, has taken the entire extent of Ac.14.01 guntas ignoring the Potekharab; that it cannot be presumed that the land owners could have physically retained the Potekharab area for themselves and sold away only Ac.12.35 guntas; that they did not file any declaration before the Competent Authority declaring the claimed extent of Ac.1.06 guntas nor did the appellants file any sub-division sketch demarcating the portion of Ac.1.06 cents, claimed by them and that the claim of the appellants is therefore only a presumptive and they cannot be treated as holders in the absence of a clear-cut demarcation sketch indicating their physical possession and documentary evidence in support thereof, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the competent authority, he reiterated the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act that out of total extent of Ac.14.01 guntas of land in Survey Nos.14, 15 and 16, an extent of Ac.1.06 guntas is covered by Potekharab and the balance area is Ac.12.35 guntas and that the Potekharab cannot be found in a compact block. It is also stated that it cannot be presumed that the land owners could have physically retained the Potekharab area for themselves and sold only Ac.12.35 guntas and that enquiry was conducted properly along with documentary evidence and physical possession of property declared by the declarant; that according to check measurement, the declarant is in possession of Ac.14.01 guntas and the same has been computed to the holding of the declarant. It is further stated that the provisional orders under Section 8(1) of the Act and notice under 8(3) of the Act were issued on 04.01.1982 and got served on the declarant on 12.01.1982; that subsequently final orders under Section 8(4) of the Act and statement under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 28.04.1982 and got served on the declarant on 03.05.1982; that declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette No.1 dated 03.01.1983; that the entire surplus land was also allotted vide G.O.Ms.No.1213 Rev (UC-I) dated 03.09.1983 in the SLRC Committee in favour of Cement Research Institute of India to an extent of Ac.7.00 guntas and A.P.Weaker Section Housing Programme to an extent of Ac.7.01 guntas; that on issuing notice under Section 10(5) of the Act on 17.03.1983 and serving the same on the declarant on 18.03.1983, possession of the surplus vacant land in Survey Nos.14, 15 and 16 of Sikenderguda Village to an extent of 56,766.52 square meters was taken over on 18.04.1983 by conducting a panchanama and the same was handed over to the Deputy Tahsildar (R) Tahsil Office, Rajendranagar and the same was later on handed over to the beneficiaries. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the leaned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling. The counter affidavit is silent with regard to the issuance of notice to the writ petitioners before taking possession of the property in question. Be that as it may, when the declarant himself declared that he had purchased only Ac.12.35 guntas of land and converted the same into house sites, the Competent Authority cannot include the land, which is not covered by the sale deed into the declaration of the declarant, unless the declarant has any title to the property or he is in possession of the same. The petitioners filed the appeal stating that the land in an extent of Ac.1.06 guntas is covered by graveyards of their family members. The petitioners are under no obligation to file declarations since the left over land is only 4246 square meters i.e., Ac.1.06 guntas and when the same is divided by 15 people i.e., by B.Jangaiah and 14 others, from whom the sixth respondent purchased the property, each of them will get only 283 square yards. Mere non- filing of declaration cannot be a ground to deprive the right of the petitioners over the property in question. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 28.04.1982 passed by the third respondent, as confirmed by the second respondent in appeal by order dated 11.09.2002, to the extent of inclusion of Ac.1.06 guntas of land covered by grave yards into the holdings of the sixth respondent, is set aside. Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to delete the said extent of Ac.1.06 guntas of land from the holdings of the sixth respondent, after giving notice to the petitioners as well as the sixth respondent and conducting survey. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 24.03.2011 va