THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 12701 and 12717 of 2008 Common order: One Sri P. Bala Krishna Reddy and his son, namely Sri P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the original owners’), originally are the owners and pattadars of agricultural land in an extent of Acs. 76.26 gts., situated in Sy. Nos. 5, 8 and 9 to 12 of Kondapur village, Sherilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, while in Sy. No. 8, they owned land in an extent of Acs. 15.24 gts. After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”), the original owners filed separate declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act on 14.09.1976, declaring the extents of lands held by them in different survey numbers, including the land owned by them in Sy. No. 8. In the said declarations, the original owners declared that they hold agricultural land in an extent of 6.24 hectares (one hectare = Acs. 2.471) in Sy. No. 8. While the said declarations were pending, the original owner, namely Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, obtained Certificate from respondent No. 3, namely the Special Officer and Competent Authority, under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, vide proceedings dated 11.09.1979. Thereafter, the original owners, out of an extent of Acs. 15.24 gts. owned by them in Sy. No. 8, sold an extent of Acs. 7.32 gts. each of land, to Sri Mohd. Siddiqui and Sri Mohd. Mohsin Ahmed under registered sale deeds dated 01.04.1980 and 17.08.1981 as agricultural land. Out of the said land, the said persons alienated an extent of Acs. 4.32 gts. in favour of one Sri. Ram Kishore Badwa and 5 others, who later divided the said land into six plots each admeasuring Ac. 0.32 gts. After certain transactions, one Sri V.Nagarjun purchased plots 1 to 4, in all admeasuring Acs. 2.02 gts. and sold the same to M/s. Kakatiya Properties Private Limited, under different registered sale deeds, which in turn had alienated the same to several persons. The said persons having purchased the same, entered into development agreements with M/s. Star Home Constructions petitioner No.1 in W.P. No. 12701 of 2008 and petitioner Nos. 1 to 18 in W.P. No. 12717 of 2008, executed GPA in favour of different persons. The petitioners in both the writ petitions state that they after purchasing the respective extents, along with their GPAs, are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. While the matters stood thus, it appears that Special Officer and Competent Authority, issued draft statement dated 24.01.2007 under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, and notice under Section 8(3) thereof for service of the same on the original owners, and for preferring objections, if any, in relation to the declarations filed by them under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, within 30 days. As no objections appear to have been filed by the original owners, Special Officer and Competent Authority, passed final orders dated 07.06.2007 under Sections 8(4) of the ULC Act, and issued final statement under Section 9 thereof, determining the extent of surplus land held by the original owner, namely Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, in different survey numbers, including the land in Sy. No. 8 at 2,89,463.33 Sq. mts. Thereafter, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, issued notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act on 26.07.2007, while the Gazette notification under Section 10(1) was published on 29.08.2007. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 10(6) of the ULC were issued by Special Officer and Competent Authority, authorizing the Deputy Tahsildar, Enquiry Officer, to take over possession of the land and hand over the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned and report compliance. The petitioners contend that they are not aware of the aforesaid proceedings, and that on coming to know that the land in an extent of Acs. 7.32 gts. in Sy. No. 8, purchased by them under different sale deeds, which in fact, was purchased by the vendor of the petitioners after obtaining Certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act from Special Officer and Competent Authority, was also included in the determination of the landholding of the original owner, obtained certified copies thereof, and filed the present two writ petitions, praying for the following relief: “To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent final order dated 07.06.2007 made under Section 8(4) of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the consequential Gazette Notifications issued under Section 10(1) dated 22.08.2007, Section 10(3) Notification dated 23.10.2007 and notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, dated 20.11.2007 in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners to an extent of Ac. 07.32 gts. situated in Survey No.8 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of the procedure under the provisions of the ULC Act, and consequently set aside the same declaring as void and non est in the eye of law.” The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the original owners had alienated the land in question in an extent of Acs. 15.24 gts. in Sy. No. 8 to their vendors under registered sale deeds dated 01.04.1980 and 17.08.1981 after obtaining Certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, treating it as agricultural land, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, had lost jurisdiction to deal with the declarations filed by the original owners, and if any action was to be taken on the declarations filed by the original owners, the only option available to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, was to either issue notice to the original owners or their vendors or subsequent purchasers, including the petitioners, who having purchased the same, are in possession and enjoyment of the same, as is evident from the reports of the Mandal Revenue Officer. He submitted that the petitioners being persons interested in the land, were entitled to issuance of notice, and as such, the action of the Special Officer and Competent Authority in passing order dated 24.01.2007 under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act on the original owners, namely Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, and by which date, the petitioners became owners of the land, affixutre of the notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act on 28.12.2007, the consequential panchanama dated 26.03.2008 allegedly taking over possession of the land in terms of the proceedings dated 21.01.2008 under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, are illegal and arbitrary, and prayed that they be set aside and the writ petitions be allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument that the petitioners being persons interested in the land, were entitled to issuance of notice, and non-issuance of notices and non-service of orders on the persons interested in the land by the authority, vitiates the entire proceedings, and as such, the impugned proceedings have to be declared as non est in the eye of law, placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in M/s. L.S. & Co. v. State[1], and K.B. Surendra Kumar v. Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling[2]. He submitted that the original owners, Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy died on 27.02.1993, and though the factum of his death was brought to the notice of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, by the Enquiry Officer, vide his report dated 15.04.1996, yet no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record or serve notices on them, and even though his son Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, also filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, but no notices were issued to him, and instead, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, has taken out notices to Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, who was no more. Hence, he submitted that the notices, orders and notifications issued by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, under the various provisions of the ULC Act in the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, being against a dead person, have to be declared as null and void ab initio. He further submitted that since the respective pieces of lands purchased by the petitioners, being from out of the land in an extent of Acs. 4.32 gts. sold by the vendors of the original owners, and the same being within the holding limit of Acs. 5.00, the petitioners are entitled to be extended the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 733, dated 31.10.1988, which enables the original owners to own and extent of Acs. 5.00. On behalf of the respondents, the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the ULC Act filed counter. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing on behalf of the respondents, reiterating the averments made by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, in the counter, submitted that the original owner, Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, obtained certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act on 11.09.1979 in respect of an extent of land in Acs. 42-29 gts. in Sy. Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 12, for use of the same for the purpose of “agriculture”. However, in contravention of the conditions of the said certificate, the original owner, had converted the land use into house plots and sold the same to third parties, and such sale transactions entered into by the declarant in favour of third parties, having regard to the provisions of Section 5(3) of the ULC Act, are null and void. He submitted that neither the petitioners nor their predecessors- in-title had made any application to the Special Officer and Competent Authority bringing to his notice about the purchases made by them. He submitted that the declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act were filed only by the original owners. In the enquiry report dated 30.05.1989, it was reported by the Enquiry Officer that Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy alone was the pattadar of the land and that his name was reflected in the village records of the year 1975-76. Considering the fact that only the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, was reflected in the revenue record, draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, and notice under Section 8(3) thereof were prepared and issued on 24.01.2007 by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, calling for objections, if any, only from him. Thereafter, the declarant was provisionally found holding surplus land in an extent of 2,89,463.33 Sq. mts. in Sy. Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Kondapur village. As no objections were received from the original owner, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, passed final orders under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act on 07.06.2007 confirming the surplus holding of the original owner. The said order was served on the original owner, by affixing the same on the Notice Board of the Panchayat Office, by conducting panchanama, on 24.07.2007. Thereafter, notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued on 22.08.2007 and the same was published in the Gazette Notification No.258, dated 29.08.2007, and declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was issued on 23.10.2007, which was published in Gazette No.303, dated 26.10.2007, and notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 20.11.2007 and proceedings under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act were issued on 26.03.2008 and possession of the surplus land was taken over. He submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988, for it is applicable only to the original declarants. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment and considering the rival contentions, the following questions do arise for consideration in the writ petition: 1. Whether the impugned proceedings under the various provisions of the ULC Act, which led to determination of surplus land and passing orders for taking over possession thereof, particularly in relation to the land purchased by the petitioners, by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, against the original owner, namely Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, who died in the year 1993, are void and non-est in the eye of law? 2. Whether the petitioners, who purchased the land in question, from their predecessors-in-title, who purchased the same from the original owners, are persons interested in the property, if so, whether they are entitled to be issued notices in relation to the proceedings under the various provisions of the ULC Act, passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, and if so, what would be the effect of non- service of such notices on them? 3. Whether alleged sale of agricultural land in Sy. No. 8 by converting the same into plots, violated the conditions of the Certificate dated 11.09.1979, obtained by the original owner, namely Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act? and 4. Whether the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title, were entitled to the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 733, dated 31.10.1988, which permitted holding of Ac.5.00 of agricultural land in urban agglomeration? To answer the aforesaid questions, a reference be made to some of the undisputed facts, as emerging from the record produced by the respondents, which run thus: Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy and his son Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, are original owners and pattadars of agricultural land in an extent of Acs. 76.26 gts. in Sy. Nos. 5, 8 and 9 to 12, including land in an extent of Acs. 15.24 gts. in Sy. No. 8 of Kondapur village, Sherilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They sold the said land in Sy. No. 8 to their vendors, after obtaining Certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, as agricultural land. Subsequently, the said persons sold the same to several other persons. After several sale transactions, the petitioners having purchased the land, are in possession of enjoyment of certain extents of land in Sy. No. 8 in respect of which they entered into development agreement with M/s. Star Home Constructions. A perusal of the record produced by the respondents would reveal that after coming into force of the ULC Act, the original owners, filed declarations separately under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, on 12.09.1976, declaring the different extents of land held by them in Sy. Nos. 5, 8, 9 to 12 and 34. In the said declarations, they mentioned that in Sy. No. 8, they hold an extent of 6.24 Hectares, which is equivalent to Acs. 15-24 gts.. Acting on the said declarations, the Special Officer and Competent Authority issued notices to the original owners, for participating in the enquiry and other proceedings under the ULC Act. However, at the request of the declarants, the enquiry and other proceedings were postponed from time to time. On 30.05.1989, the Enquiry Officer, having enquired about the status of the land, submitted a report to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, stating that “the lands declared fall within H.U.A. (but out of municipal limits) and earmarked for “agriculture” in the Master Plan Register maintained. That the declarants failed to produce pahani patrikas for the crucial period, and therefore, the lands held by them may be treated as vacant lands, for the purpose of computation. He further stated that in the pahanies for the years 1975-76 and 1987-88, the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, is recorded in the pattadar and owner column. Since the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy was recorded in the owner and pattadar column, in the pahanies for the year 1975-76 and 1987-88, the Enquiry Officer reported that the lands may be computed against Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy alone, and notice be issued to Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, to produce evidence in support of his title. Even though Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy sold the land in Sy. No. 8 to Mohd. Siddiqui and Mohd. Mohsin Ahmed, after obtaining Certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act from the Special Officer and Competent Authority, the fact remains, no reference is made in the report with respect to the said persons. Thereafter, it appears, notices were again issued to the original owners. The Enquiry Officer, having conducted enquiry into the status of the land, submitted another report on 15.04.1996, stating that he inspected the land in the presence of Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, and during the course of inspection, he found that he was in possession and enjoyment of some extent of land, and that his father Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, had died, and that during his life time, he had sold several extents of land, and that the said persons are in possession and enjoyment of the same. This report, admittedly, reported the factum of death of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, to the Special Officer and Competent Authority. Another enquiry was conducted on 08.12.1999, and the Enquiry Officer, having conducted the enquiry, submitted his report stating that in the pahani for the year 1975-76, the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, is recorded as pattedar in Column No. 12, while the names of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy and Sri. Laxminarayana Reddy, are recorded as cultivator in Column No. 16 with respect to land in Sy. No. 8. That the land in Sy. No. 8 is covered with plotting. Thereafter, another enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer, having conducted the enquiry, submitted report on 14.09.2006 reporting the ground status of the lands in relation to different survey numbers, stating that as per the pahani for the year 1979-80, the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy is recorded as pattedar in respect of land in Sy. No. 8, and that out of an extent of Acs. 15.24 gts. of land in Sy. No. 8, an extent of Acs. 6.24 gts. is covered by structures and an extent of Acs. 9.00 is still vacant, and that the vacant land is available here and there, which is covered by individual compound walls, and that construction work is under progress in some vacant lands. Even though the enquiry report dated 08.12.1999 and the enquiry reports obtained prior thereto, did not report any construction in the land in Sy. No. 8, but the fact remains, the report dated 08.12.1999, reported that out of the land in an extent of Acs. 15.24 gts. in Sy. No. 8, an extent of Acs. 6.24 gts. is covered by structures, and the remaining extent of Acs. 9.00 is vacant land, and that the said vacant land is available here and there, which is covered by individual compound walls, and that construction work is under progress against some vacant lands. The fact that the enquiry report dated 08.12.1999, did not report existence of any constructions in the land in Sy. No. 8, much less covered by compound walls, would suggest that the constructions reported in the land in Sy. No. 8, vide reported dated 14.09.2006, obviously must have taken place in between the period 08.12.1999 and 14.09.2006 and not at an earlier point of time. However, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, without taking note of the enquiry report dated 14.09.2006, and based on the enquiry report dated 08.12.1999, issued draft statement dated 24.01.2007 under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, determining the extent of surplus land held by them, and notice under Section 8(3) thereof, to the original owners, to submit their objections, if any, within 30 days. There is also a panchanama dated 26.04.2007 available in the record, and a perusal of the same, would disclose that the panch witnesses stated that there is no person by name Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy and Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, residing in the village. Therefore, the draft statement and notice dated 24.01.2007, were affixed on the Notice Board of the Panchayat Office at Kondapur. As obviously, no objections were filed by the original owners, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, passed final orders dated 07.06.2007, under Section 9 of the ULC confirming the draft statement, determining the extent of surplus land held by the original owners. Though Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy and his son, namely Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, filed declarations, but the final orders dated 07.06.2007, were addressed only to Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy. As no person by name, Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, was said to be residing in the village, the Enquiry Officer, affixed the said orders in the Panchayat Office, under a panchanama on 24.07.2007, and to that effect, filed a report. Thereafter, notice and declaration Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act respectively, were issued on 22.08.2007 and 23.10.2007, and they were also published in the official gazette on 29.08.2007 and 26.10.2007 respectively. In the said notice and declaration, only the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy is mentioned, while the name of Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, who also filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, is not found. Pursuant thereto, notice dated 20.11.2007 under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued to Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, to surrender the determined surplus land. On 20.12.2007, the Enquiry Officer made an endorsement that the whereabouts of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, are not known and that he affixed the said notice on the spot. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued to Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy. There is no endorsement as to whether the said notice was served on Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy. However, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, vide orders dated 26.03.2008 stating that as the declarant Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, failed to deliver possession of the land, authorized the Deputy Tahsildar, Enquiry Officer, to take over possession of the determined surplus land and handover the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer. In terms of the said order, the determined surplus land was taken on the same day under a cover of panchanama. In reply to Question No.1: Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, one of the two original owners, filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act. While the proceedings in relation to the declarations filed by them were pending, he died on 27.02.1993. Though the respondents contend that the factum of death of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, ought to have been brought to their notice by his legal heirs, the fact remains, the factum of death of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, was brought to the notice of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, by the Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 15.04.1996. In the said report, the Enquiry Officer reported to the Special Officer and Competent Authority that he conducted the enquiry in the presence of Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, and found that Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, was in possession of certain extents of land, and that his father died. Despite bringing the factum of death of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy to his notice, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, failed to take any steps to issue any notice to his son, namely Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy or other persons, who were found to be in possession of the lands, as evidenced by the report dated 14.09.2006 of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, was not justified in issuing notices, notifications and determining the surplus land in the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy. The law is well settled that any order passed against a dead person is void. Though the determination made by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the various provisions of the ULC Act, covers various extents of land, but since the petitioners are only concerned with the certain extent of land purchased by them in Sy. No. 8, the action of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, in including the said land purchased by the petitioners in the determination, and determining the same as surplus land and passing an order against Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, who was no more, is bad and is liable to be