THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.9172 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners challenge an order, dated 12.07.2006, passed by the Commissioner of Appeals-cum-Appellate Authority Under Urban Land Ceiling Act, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, confirming the order, dated 10.05.2004, passed by the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). The 1st petitioner states that he entered into an agreement of sale in respect of Acs.28.02 guntas of land in survey No.1011/10 of Moosapet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on 23.10.1982. It is contended that, at the relevant of point of time, the land is not covered by the provisions of the Act. It is also pleaded that the sale deed was not executed, on account of certain litigation among third parties. The 1st petitioner entered into a development agreement with the 2nd petitioner. One Mr.Yadaiah, one of the nephews of Pentaiah, the vendor of the petitioner, filed a declaration, on 05.03.1983, under Section 6(1) of the Act, after the master plan of Hyderabad was extended to the land. An order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed by the 2nd respondent on 21.12.1994. At that stage, about 20 members of the family, comprising of Pentaiah and his four other brothers, by name Balaiah, Pochaiah, Agaiah and Mallaiah, filed an appeal. The appeal was allowed on 22.04.2003, by the 1st respondent, and it was remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. On such remand, the 2nd respondent passed an order, on 10.05.2004, allotting shares to various individuals. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 33 of the Act, before the 1st respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 12.07.2006, observing that the petitioners cannot be treated as aggrieved parties. Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that valuable rights have accrued to the petitioners, on the basis of an agreement of sale executed by Pentaiah and that they were not put on notice, after the master plan was extended to the land. He further alleges that the claim made on behalf of respondents 3 to 74 was totally untenable and is sub-servient to the agreement of sale in favour of the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, not being declarants in respect of the land, nor purchasers thereof, at the relevant point of time, the petitioners cannot raise any objection to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. He further submits that if the petitioners want to assert their rights under the agreement of sale, they have to approach the Civil Court. The 1st petitioner had an agreement of sale in respect of Acs.28.02 guntas of land, from one of the 5 brothers, namely, Pentaiah. It is not clear, as to whether the land was partitioned among the brothers by the date of agreement. An important aspect is that the land was not the subject matter of the proceedings under the Act till 1983, when it was brought under the purview of the master plan. Initially, an order was passed by the 2nd respondent, holding that substantial part of it was in excess of ceiling limits. The aggrieved parties preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed. After remand, the 2nd respondent allotted share to each of the legal heirs, in accordance with their entitlement. Nobody, except the petitioners, felt aggrieved by the order, dated 10.05.2004, passed by the 2nd respondent. In the appeal preferred by the petitioners, the 1st respondent referred to a judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court, which dealt with the question of, “person aggrieved vis-à- vis a declarant under the Act”. After identifying the indicia thereof, the 1st respondent held that the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved parties. In effect, the petitioners intended to enforce their rights before the 1st respondent, as though it is a suit for specific for performance. The petitioners cannot be treated as aggrieved parties, for the reason that the land was not taken over by the Government as excess land. The question as to whether Pentaiah had the exclusive and absolute right to convey the property to the petitioners, was in no way determined by respondents 1 and 2. Even now the petitioners can raise that question before a Civil Court, either by filing a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 23.10.1982, or by seeking any declaratory relief. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in a Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:30.04.2009. GJ