IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 117 of 1998 Between: Maddi Sitadevi, w/o. Laxmaiah, Aged 60 years, R/o.Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Special Officer & Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to Memo No.52209/UC-(1)/97-1, dated 14.08.1997 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1993 SC 2465 and also violative of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent not to resume the land in an extent of Ac.5.23 cts., in Sy.Nbos.129 and 131 of Kahatedan village, Ranga Reddy district. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. P.V.Sanjay Kumar The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.117 of 1998 ORDER: Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent would place before this Court a copy of the notification issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.603, dated 22.04.2008, and the Circular Memo No.17377/UC-I(1)/2008-1, dated 24.04.2008, to submit that, consequent on the adoption of the Repeal Act, 1999 by the A.P. State Legislature with effect from 27.03.2008, except in those category of cases mentioned in clauses (a) to (k) of the Circular Memo, dated 24.04.2008, in all other matters the consequences of the Act being repealed would enure to the benefit of the landholder. 2. Learned Counsel would submit that in the present case this Court has granted stay of dispossession and since in accordance with clause (a) of the Circular Memo, dated 24.04.2008, only cases in which possession of surplus lands taken by the Government under Section 10 (6) are saved, the consequences of the Act being repealed would be that the Government would no longer be in a position to take possession of the lands. Learned Counsel would fairly state that the writ petition must be allowed on this short ground. 3. Recording the said submission of the learned Counsel, the writ petition is allowed and the interim stay granted earlier is made the final order in the writ petition. No costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 16.06.2008 GS To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }