IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15997 of 2009 Between: Sri K. Satyanarayana Raju, ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .....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 The Court made the following : ORDER: One Smt. Batul Fatima was an allottee of plot in Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village, admeasuring Ac.2.36 guntas, which was part of erstwhile Jubliee Hills Municipality. The petitioner purchased an extent of 425 Square Yards of land out of plot No.4 through sale deed, dated 24.11.1999, and constructed house thereon. The Second respondent-Special Officer and Competent Authority took note of the fact that the land allotted to Smt. Batul Fatima was part of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and on finding that no declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) was filed in respect of the same, he issued a notice, dated 21.09.2006, under Section 6(2) of the Act. The notice could not be served on account of the fact that Smt. Batul Fatima was not available. The Enquiry Officer in the office of the first respondent reported that the notice dated 21.09.2006 could not be served upon Smt. Batul Fatima since she is not residing at the noted address. Thereafter, the second respondent passed an order dated 05.03.2007 under Section 8(4) of the Act. He took the view that Smt. Batul Fatima is liable to surrender an extent of 11735.78 sq. mtrs of land. This was followed by a notice, dated 04.06.2007 under Section 10 of the Act and the proceedings, dated 05.02.2008, under Section 10 (6) of the Act. The petitioner states that the officials of the second respondent are trying to dispossess him. He contends that the entire proceedings initiated against Smt. Batul Fatima are untenable in law inasmuch as the said allottee died way back on 03.01.2002. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Though the Act came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1976, the second respondent woke up three decades thereafter vis-à-vis the land that was allotted to Smt. Batul Fatima. He issued a notice, dated 21.09.2006, under Section 6(2) of the Act. In the meanwhile, the land changed several hands. A part of that was purchased by the petitioner and another part by respondent No.5. It hardly needs any mention that any proceedings under the Act issued against a dead person are void abinitio and they cannot give rise to any legal consequences. The petitioner filed a copy of death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, which says that Smt. Batul Fatima died on 03.01.2000. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings insofar as the land held by the petitioner are set aside. The application said to have been filed by respondent No.5 shall be considered on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMRA REDDY, J Date:23.03.2009 sj