IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 26423 of 2003 Between: V.C.Brahmanna, s/o Veeranna R/o H.No.6-3-661/4/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (U.C.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, 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 may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order in GO Ms.No.1128-Revenue (U.II) Dept., dated 13-11-2003 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.P.CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order in G.O.Ms.No.1128- Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 13.11.2003, issued by the 1st respondent. It appears, the 2nd respondent-Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, by his proceedings dated 19.07.2001, declared the petitioner as non-surplus landholder under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). Thereafter, the Government, on the ground that the said orders dated 19.07.2001 of the 2nd respondent are irregular, has taken u p suo motu revision and, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub- Section (1) of Section 34 of the Act, by the impugned G.O., dated 13.11.2003, has set aside the orders dated 19.07.2001 of the 2nd respondent and directed the 2nd respondent to pass revised orders under Section 8(4) of the Act afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to all effected persons as per law. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Admittedly, the matter in the present case arises under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 has been repealed by adopting the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and in view of the adoption of Repeal Act 15 of 1999, which came into operation on 22.04.2008, all the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 by the respondent authorities stand abated. Thus, the impugned G.O. is liable to be set aside and is, therefore, set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 22.07.2009 v v