IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8989 of 2009 Between: 1 Chigirintha Janga Reddy S/o. Late C. Rangaiah R/o. H.No.4-120, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Chigirintha Tirupathi Reddy S/o. Late Kistaiah R/o. H.No. 6-52, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Chigirintha Padmamma W/o. Late Kistaiah R/o. H.No. 6-52, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Chigirintha Bal Reddy S/o. Late Agaiah R/o. H.No. 4-280, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Chigirintha Yadagiri Reddy @ Yadi Reddy S/o. Late Agaiah R/o. H.No. 4-280, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 Chigirintha Narasimha Reddy S/o. Late Agaiah R/o. H.No. 4-280, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 Chigirintha Bal Reddy S/o. Late Yellaiah R/o. H.No. 4-313, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 Chigirintha Malla Reddy S/o. Late Yellaiah R/o. H.No. 4-313, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 9 Chigirintha Sriram Reddy S/o. Late Yellaiah R/o. H.No. 4-313, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Revenue (Assignment) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not returning the amounts totaling to Rs.1.4 crore as detailed in the 'Schedule', deposited by the petitioners with the second respondent along with their regularization application pursuant to representation dated 1.4.2009, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the second respondent to release the said amounts to the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners hold land admeasuring Acs.81.04 cents. The said land is a part of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. They filed declarations under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) and an order was passed under Section 8(4) thereof. The petitioners also approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.4502 of 1984 and got the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atiya Mohammedi Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1]. It is represented that though the petitioners were not declared to be holding any land in excess of ceiling limits, with a view to enjoy the property, they submitted applications in terms of G.O.Ms.No.456, dated 29.07.2002 and they have deposited Rs.1.4 Crore on 29.03.2006. The petitioners state that on receiving the applications, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.456, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein, passed an order, dated 22.02.2007 under Section 8(4) of the Act by reopening the proceedings. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.10847 of 2007 challenging the order, dated 22.02.2007 passed by the second respondent. Through the order, dated 24.05.2007 in WPMP.No.13603 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.10847 of 2007, this Court suspended the said order. In the meanwhile, the Repeal Act of 1999, through which, the Act was repealed, came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.03.2008. The petitioners submitted the representation, dated 01.04.2009 to the second respondent with a request to refund the amount paid by them. Their grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The petitioners deposited a substantial amount being Rs.1.4 Crore with an object of availing benefit under G.O.Ms.No.456. The second respondent, however, had chosen to pass an order, dated 22.02.2007 virtually frustrating the applications of the petitioners submitted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.456. Even while Writ Petition No.10847 of 2007 is pending before this Court, the Act came to be repealed in the State. Therefore, even if the petitioners want to pursue their applications, it becomes impossible. In that view of the matter, they submitted an application for refund of the amount. The filing of applications in terms of G.O.Ms.No.456 is not a requirement under law. It is for the parties concerned to choose whether or not to avail the remedy. By mere submission of the applications, they cannot forego their right to seek refund of the amount. The maximum that can happen on account of refund of the amount is that the petitioners cannot avail the remedy or benefit under G.O.Ms.No.456. The application made by the petitioners cannot be kept pending indefinitely, particularly, having regard to the developments in law and the quantum of amount involved. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation, dated 01.04.2009 submitted by the petitioners, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 29th APRIL, 2009. kvni [1] 1993(2) SCC 546