IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15979 of 2001 Between: Dr. R.Narasimha Murthy S/o. late M.Rajgopal R/o. Railway Quarters No. 0952/2, South Lalaguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner for Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, IIIrd Floor, Chandra Vihar, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RAGHAVAN Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash orders dated 18-07-1996 and 30-03-2001 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively. Heard Sri N.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2. Notice dated 11-06-1996, issued by the petitioner, under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) was returned by respondent No.2, by his order dated 18-07-1996, on the ground that the vendor of the petitioner was declared to hold surplus land by proceedings dated 09-07-1993 and that consequently notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued. The said order was unsuccessfully questioned, in the appeal, before respondent No.1. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature, by its resolution dated 27-03-2008, adopted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. With the repeal of the Act, the requirement of a notice to be issued under Section 26 of the Act ceases to exist, irrespective of whether a person holds land in excess of the ceiling limit or not. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by respondents 2 and 1, on merits. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th March, 2009 vrn