THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.V.M.P. NO.3388 OF 2009 IN W.P.M.P. NO.25407 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.19477 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.19477 OF 2008 DATED FEBRUARY, 2011 BETWEEN A.Damodar …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (UC-I) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.V.M.P. NO.3388 OF 2009 IN W.P.M.P. NO.25407 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.19477 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.19477 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner assails the orders under Section 8(4) and the final statement under Section 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 17.12.1982 and seeks a declaration that he is entitled to retain an extent of 1000 square meters in Survey No.65 of Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the entire extent of 11600 square meters in Survey Nos.6 to 12 of Makta Bibi Saheb, Peerjadiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner claims to be the owner of 11600 square meters of land in Survey Nos.6 to 12 of Makta Bibi Saheb, Peerjadiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, and an extent of 10066 square meters of land in Survey No.65 of Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1976’) in respect of these lands. The impugned proceedings dated 17.12.1982 were passed thereon declaring that his entire land in Uppal was an excess holding and that he was only entitled to retain 1000 square meters of land at Makta Bibi Saheb. The petitioner claims ignorance of the proceedings dated 17.12.1982 and further action taken in pursuance thereof. He stated that only in September, 2004 he came to know about the proceedings dated 17.12.1982 and of the issuance of a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976. Thereupon, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 33 of the Act of 1976. The delay in the filing of the appeal was condoned by order dated 07.12.2004 and the appeal was taken on file by the authority. It is the case of the petitioner that he would be entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.733, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 31.10.1988 and in view thereof, his entire land in Makta Bibi Saheb, Ghatkesar Mandal, would be covered by the exemption granted under said G.O. He therefore contended that the later proceedings under the Act of 1976 ignoring the said G.O. were unsustainable. He claims to have raised the same issue in his appeal before the appellate authority. While so, as the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 was adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.03.2008, the appellate authority closed his appeal as abated. The petitioner stated that though he was in actual possession of the lands, the authorities under the Act of 1976 had issued proceedings dated 03.03.1999 under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 stating to the effect that his surplus lands had been taken possession of. In view of the closure of his appeal owing to the repeal of the Act of 1976, the petitioner, having no other go, approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking the reliefs aforestated. This Court, by interim order dated 08.09.2008, directed status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained. While so, the third respondent herein came on record in the present writ petition stating that the petitioner had obtained a layout in respect of the land in Survey No.65 of Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and sold an extent of 423 square yards to her under registered sale deed dated 28.11.1998. Seeking to get her possession over the subject land regularized in accordance with law and aggrieved by the status quo order passed by this Court which prevented her from doing so, she filed an application to vacate the said order in so far as her land is concerned. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, the second respondent, filed a counter in the matter stating that after the issuance of orders under Section 8(4) and the final statement under Section 9 of the Act of 1976 vide proceedings dated 17.12.1982, notification under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1976 was issued on 13.08.1985. As no objections were received in response thereto, declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 was issued on 14.08.1998. Notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was said to have been issued on 20.10.1998 and possession of the land was taken under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 on 19.06.1999, in so far as the land at Uppal Mandal is concerned, and on 14.03.2008, in so far as the land at Makta Bibi Saheb, Ghatkesar Mandal, is concerned. The second respondent however admitted that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 was erroneously denied to the petitioner in so far as his land at Makta Bibi Saheb, Ghatkesar Mandal, is concerned, as this land was in the peripheral area covered by the orders in the said G.O. Apart from this land, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, also admitted that the petitioner would be entitled to retain 1000 square meters of land at Uppal Mandal. In effect, the claim of the petitioner was admitted in its entirety by the second respondent. Relevant to note, in PARCHURI RATNAKAR RAO v. STATE OF A.P.[1], a Division Bench of this Court observed: “42. Thus, the decisional law is to the effect that the exemption under G.O. Ms. No.733 is automatic notwithstanding vesting of surplus land in the Government, if the proceedings under Chapter-Ill of the Act remained inconclusive by 31.10.1988, the date of G.O. Ms. No.733. ………” In the present case, there is no dispute that by the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988, only the notification under Section 10(1) of Chapter-III of the Act of 1976 had been issued and thus, the proceedings remained inconclusive. Similar was the view taken in K.ANJANA DEVI v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.[2], wherein a Division Bench of this Court observed to the effect that G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 would be applicable in cases where the possession of land had not been taken over by the Government under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976 by the date of issuance of the said G.O. In the present case, even as per the claim of the second respondent, the taking over of the possession of petitioner’s lands was well after the issuance of the G.O. in the year 1988. Once G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 had applicability to the land of the petitioner at Makta Bibi Saheb, Ghatkesar Mandal, as fairly conceded by the second respondent in his counter, the said land has to be excluded in its entirety from his excess holding. In so far as the land at Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is concerned, the petitioner restricted his claim to an extent of 1000 square meters which would be his entitlement under the Act of 1976 and the same is also fairly conceded by the second respondent in his counter. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 17.12.1982 passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, holding to the contrary. There shall be a consequential declaration that the petitioner is entitled to retain the entire extent of land admeasuring 11600 square meters in Survey Nos.6 to 12 of Makta Bibi Saheb, Peerjadiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and an extent of 1000 square meters in Survey No.65 of Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In view of this final order, no separate orders need to be passed in so far as the third respondent is concerned. Consequently, W.V.M.P.No.3388 of 2009 in W.P.M.P.No.25407 of 2008 in W.P.No.19477 of 2008 is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ FEBRUARY, 2011. VGSR [1] 2006 (6) ALT 671 (DB) [2] 2007 (2) ALT 322 (DB)