THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.19367 and 19457 of 2009 DATED: 14.09.2009 WRIT PETITION No.19367 of 2009 Between: Chava China Veerabhadraiah .. Petitioner. And The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (ULC) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. WRIT PETITION No.19457 of 2009 Between: Chava Hymavathi. .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. COMMON ORDER: In these two writ petitions, common questions of fact and law arise for consideration; therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioner in W.P.No.19367 of 2009 is the husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.19457 of 2009 and both of them purchased the land to an extent of Ac.4.29 gts. each in Sy.No.203 situated at Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, along with structures existed therein, from one V.Sudarshanam and three others, by way of a sale deed dated 25.09.1974, and since the date of purchase, they along with their family members are in exclusive possession of the said property. While so, the petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent-Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, has erroneously computed the aforesaid property, which belonged to them and is in their physical possession, to the holding of the said V.Sudarshanam and three others and arrived at conclusion that the said persons were holding surplus land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and, accordingly, passed orders in CC.No.H2/253/81 on 13.09.2006 under Section 8(4) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) and the final statement under Section 9 of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred appeals before the 2nd respondent-Commissioner Appeals, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, and obtained status quo orders on 29.11.2006, which was later on modified as stay on 24.03.2007, and the said orders continued till the repeal of the Act. Subsequently, the Act was repealed and the Government issued Circular Memo No.17377/UC.I(1)/2008-1, dated 24.04.2008, to that effect and, as such, appeals filed by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent stood abated. The petitioners contends that in respect of the aforesaid lands owned and possessed by them, no orders much less orders under Section 8(4), final statement under Section 9, notification under Section 10(1), declaration under Section 10(3), notice under Section 10(5) and orders under Section 10(6) of the Act are passed against them. They further contend that their possession is evident from the report dated 11.08.2008 of the Additional Mandal Revenue Inspector, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the report dated 16.08.2008 of the Tahsildar, Serilingampally, addressed to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and its further confirmation by the Tahsildar through letter No.B/107/99, dated 30.01.2009, addressed to the Collector. They also contend that the 2nd respondent, in his letter dated 16.01.2009, informed the Advocate General about the appeals preferred by them and the order of status quo on 29.11.2006 passed by the appellate authority and also its continuation till repeal of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 3rd respondent, without having jurisdiction and any statutory orders against them in respect of the aforesaid lands purchased by them, is trying to take possession of the lands held by them on false, frivolous and baseless claim, and, therefore, they submitted representations to the 1st respondent on 07.06.2008, for issuance of proper directions to the 3rd respondent not to dispossess them from their property, in view of repeal of the Act and the Government Circular Memo dated 24.04.2008 issued thereto, which is being followed in all other cases and even applicable to their case, but so far the 1st respondent has not taken any action on their representations. Hence, this writ petition. In the fact and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representations purported to have been filed by the petitioners on 07.06.2008 and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioners. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 14.09.2009 v v