THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1018 OF 2010 DT.02.12.2011 BETWEEN Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it Prl. Secretary, Revenue Departmet, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. …Appellants And H.R.Jayanth and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1018 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The appellants (the State) are aggrieved by judgment and order dt.17.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.20358 of 2008. 2. By the judgment and order under appeal, the learned Single Judge held that the proceedings initiated against Smt. B. Laxmi Devi under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’) were not valid. 3. Smt. Laxmi Devi died on 25.3.1990 and before that she had sold her property to Sri Raghava Co-operative Housing Society. This society had sold plots of various sizes in Sy.No.129 of Shaikpet Village to the respondents before us. Thereafter, the respondents have been in possession of the land in question since long. 4. The respondents were served with a notice by the appellants on 7.8.2008 for regularization of the surplus land under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 29.06.2008. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this notice, the respondents preferred a writ petition which came to be allowed by the judgment and order under appeal. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued against a dead person (Smt. B. Laxmi Devi) and therefore the proceedings under the Act were vitiated and the respondents were not under an obligation to seek regularization of their lands. The appellants had also not taken possession of the surplus land. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants (the State) are now before us challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a Memo dated 29.04.2009 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (UC.II) Department, which notes that the proceedings under the Act were held to be illegal by this Court and that it was further directed that the respondents were not obliged to seek regularization of the land not covered by the Act. The Special Oﬃcer under the Act was requested to take necessary action on the basis of the Judgment of this Court. 8. Subsequently, on 29.07.2009 another Memo was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (UC.II) Department, directing the refund of the amount paid by the respondents towards regularization of the land in question. 9. The Memos do not say that they have been issued without prejudice to the rights of the appellants or that they have been issued subject to any appeal being ﬁled. In fact, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants only after considerable delay on or about 09.07.2010 which is more than a year after the aforestated two Memos were issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 10. Under the circumstances, since the appellants had accepted the decision of the learned Single Judge and implemented it also, we do not see any reason to entertain this writ appeal. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed and interim applications are also dismissed. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 02-12-2011 Bnr/vgsr