IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 847 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/05/2009 in WP NO : 6693 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Laxmi Hephzibah W/o.John Wesley R/o.H.No.3-6-164/107, Laxminarayana Apartments, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 Dr.G.Zion Eluzai S/o.late G Manohar R/o.H.No.3-6-164/107, Laxminarayana Apartments, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer and competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling, Gruhakalpa, Opp: Exhibition Grounds, Hyderabad. 3 B.Kasibabu S/o.Subba Rao R/o.12-2-828/A/35, Ambagardens, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 4 Anjani Misra W/o.Vijai Misra R/o.54B Methodist Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 5 G.Sarojini W/o.G.Sai Prasad R/o.10-2-318/1/A/B, Indiranagar, Vijaynagar Colony, Hyderabad. 6 G.Narendra Kumar S/o.G.Sai Prasad C/o.Dr.G.K.Mohan Rao, Raghavendra Colony, Sivarampally. Hyderabad. 7 P.Ramdevendra Raju S/o.Gopalakrishnam Raju R/o.H.No. 134, BHEL, HIG-PhaseII, Ushodaya Enclave, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. 8 G.Satyanarayana Reddy S/o.G.Vittal Reddy R/o.Plot No. 203, Sarvodaya Enclave, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 9 K.Lakshminarasimha Reddy S/o.Narasimham R/o.2-1-566/E, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 10 K.Kishore Kumar S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Flat No. 502, Sreenilaya Towers, Erra Manzil Colony, Hyderabad. 11 K.Saradamba W/o.K.Seshachalambabu R/o.Plot No. 34, APAU Colony, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad. 12 M.Pratima W/o.M.Venugopala Reddy C/o.K.Pandarinath Reddy, R/o. 194, MLA & MP's Colony Road No. 10C, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 13 O.Ramachandra REddy S/o.O.Bayyappureddy C/o.K.Pandarinath Reddy, R/o. 194, MLA & MP's Colony Road No. 10C, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 14 G.Vidyasagar Reddy S/o.late G.Chennakrishna Reddy R/o. Plot No.203, Sarvodaya Enclave, Opp: Old MLA qtrs. Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 15 G.Sundara Rama Raju S/o.Venkatapathi Raju R/o.12-2-828/A/26, Ambagardens, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 16 K.Pandarinatha Reddy S/o.Rami Reddy C/o.K.Pandarinath Reddy, R/o. 194, MLA & MP's Colony Road No. 10C, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 17 K.Ramadevi W/o.Sridhar C/o.K.Pandarinath Reddy, R/o. 194, MLA & MP's Colony Road No. 10C, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 18 K.Pradeep Kumar s/o.K.Subba Rao R/o.1641, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 19 K.Leelavathi W/o.K.Sreeramulu Chetty R/o.Flat No.5, Santosh Deluxe Apartments, Santoshnagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 20 K.Sreenivasulu Reddy S/o.Venkat Reddy R/o.Plot No.41, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 21 K.Purushotham Reddy S/o.Kanna Reddy R/o.9-4-86/123, Salarjung Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 22 M.Shyamalamma W/o.Venkatapathy R/o.Plot No.15, HUDA Layout, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 23 M.Nirmala Devi W/o.Venkatapathi R/o.Plot No.15, HUDA Layout, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 850 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/05/2009 in WP NO : 6700 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Laxmi Hephzibah W/o.John Wesley R/o.H.No.3-6-164/107,Laxminarayana Apartments Himayathnagar,Hyderabad 2 Dr.G.Zion Eluzai S/o.Late G.Manohar R/o.H.No.3-6-164/107,Laxminarayana Apartments Himayathnagar,Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat ,Hyderabad 2 The Special officer and Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling,Gruhakalpa,Opp:Exhibition Grounds Hyderabad 3 B.Kasibabu S/o.Subba Rao R/o.12-2-828/A/35,Amba gardens Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad 4 Anjani Misra W/o.Vijai Misra R/o.54B,Methodist colony Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad 5 G.Sarojini W/o.G.Sai Prasad R/o.10-2-318/1/A/B,Indranagar Vijayanagar colony,Hyderabad 6 G.Narendra Kumar S/o.G.Sai Prasad C/o.Dr.G.K.Mohan Rao,Raghavendra colony Sivarampally,Hyderabad 7 P.Ramadevendra RAju S/o.Gopalakrishnam Raju R/o.H.no.134,BHEL,HIG Phase II Ushodaya Enclave,Madinaguda Hyderabad 8 G.Satyanarayana Reddy S/o.G.Vittal Reddy R/.o.Plot No.203 Sarvodaya Enclave,Himayatnagar Hyderabad 9 K.Lakshminarasimha Reddy S/o.Narasimham R/o.2-1-566/E, Nallakunta Hyderabad 10 K.Kishore Kumar S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Flat No.502,Sreenilaya Towers Erra Manzil colony Hyderabad 11 K.Saradamba W/o.K.Sehsachalambabu R/o.Plot No.34,APAU Colony Gaddiannaram Hyderabad 12 M.pratima W/o.M.Venugopala Reddy C/o.K.pandarinatha Reddy R/o.194, MLA & MPs Colony Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad 13 O.Ramachandra REddy S/o.O.Bayyappureddy C/o.K.pandarinatha Reddy R/o.194, MLA & MPs Colony Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad 14 G.Vidyasagaar REddy S/o.Late G.Chennakrishna Reddy R/o.Plot No.203,Sarvodaya Enclave Opp:Old MLA Qtrs,Himayatnagar, Hyderabad 15 G.Sundara RAma Raju S/o.Venkatapathi Raju R/o.12-2-828/A/26, Ambagardens Mehdipatnam Hyderabad 16 K.Pandarinatha Reddy S/o.Rami Reddy C/o.K.Pandarinath Reddy R/o.194,MLA & MPs Colony, Road No.10C,Jubilee Hills Hyderabad 17 K.Ramadevi W/o.Sridhar C/o.K.Pandarinath Reddy R/o.194,MLA & MPs Colony, Road No.10C,Jubilee Hills Hyderabad 18 K.Pradeep Kumar S/o.K.Suba Rao R/o.1641, Road No.12 Banjara Hills Hyderabad 19 K.Leelavathi W/o.K.Sreeramulu Chetty R/o.Flat No.5,Santosh Deluxe Apartments Santoshnagar, Mehdipatnam Hyderabad 20 K.Sreenivasulu Reddy S/o.Venkat Reddy R/o.Plot No.41,Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 21 K.Purushotham Reddy S/o.Kanna Reddy R/o.9-4-86/123,Salarjung colony Mehdipatnam Hyderabad 22 M.Shyamalamma W/o.Venkatapathy R/o.Plot No.15,HUDA Layout Road No.2, Banjara Hills Hyderabad 23 M.Nirmala Devi W/o.Venkatapathi R/o.Plot No.15, HUDA layout Road No.2, Banjara Hills Hyderabad 24 The Greater Hyderabad of Municipal Corporation Rep.by its Commissioner & Special officer, Tank Bund Road,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.847 AND 850 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) Arising out of the common order dated 01.05.2009 in Writ Petition Nos.6693, 6700 and 6790 of 2008, these two writ appeals are amenable to a conjoined adjudication. The appellants in these two appeals are the same. In Writ Petition No.6693 of 2008 the appellants had challenged the validity of G.O.Ms.No.438, Revenue (UC.IV) Department, dated 12.04.2006 and the consequential endorsement dated 09.11.2006. In Writ Petition No.6700 of 2008 they had challenged the action of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) in not entertaining the representation dated 23.02.2008 seeking cancellation of the building permissions issued to the unofficial respondents in the writ petition and sought a consequential direction to the Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the said representation. By the common order dated 01.05.2009, the learned Judge dismissed both the writ petitions. Writ Appeal No.847 of 2009 arises out of the dismissal of Writ Petition No.6693 of 2008 while Writ Appeal No.850 of 2009 pertains to the dismissal of Writ Petition No.6700 of 2008. A long and chequered history precedes this litigation. The lands admeasuring Ac.9.16 guntas in Survey Nos.14, 15, 367, 368 and 384 to 387 of Gudimalkapur Village, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad, were owned by one Sandaiah, who had two wives, Balamma and Laxmamma. He begot one son, Devdas through Balamma and three sons and two daughters, viz., G.S.Manohar, G.S.Prakasham, G.S.Jayakar, Deenamma and Dasamma, through the second wife, Laxmamma. The appellants herein, being the petitioners in two writ petitions, are the daughter and son of G.S.Manohar. Under a compromise decree dated 08.03.1982 recorded in C.C.C.A. No.13 of 1976, Devdas got an extent of Ac.2.04 guntas out of the above lands while the sons of Laxmamma were each allotted an equal extent of Ac.2.04 guntas and the two daughters, Deenamma and Dasamma, were given an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas each. Even prior to the above compromise, the children of late Sandaiah filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1976’). In the first instance, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, passed orders dated 09.11.1982 under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1976 determining the surplus holding of Devdas at 3,282.15 square meters and the surplus holding of the children of Laxmamma jointly at 23,684.58 square meters. The proceedings were processed upto the stage of Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 and a Gazette notification under the said Section was published on 05.07.1984. Questioning the same, the children of Laxmamma filed Writ Petition No.14627 of 1984 which was allowed by this Court on 27.02.1993 remitting the matter back to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, for fresh consideration. Questioning the very same notification, Devdas filed Writ Petition No.15124 of 1984 and by order dated 23.01.1992 this Court disposed of the same directing the Government to allot the surplus land of 3,282.15 square meters in favour of M/s.Bharani Mutually Aided Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as “Bharani Society”). The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, having conducted a fresh enquiry into the matter upon remand, passed fresh orders dated 15.02.2005 under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1976 determining the surplus holding of the children of Laxmamma at 16,572.32 square meters. Again the matter was processed upto the stage of Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 and Gazette notification under the said Section was carried out on 01.03.2005. Questioning the orders dated 15.02.2005 under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1976, G.S.Manohar, the father of the appellants, and his brother G.S.Jayakar filed appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals, Hyderabad, who dismissed the same by orders dated 04.08.2005. Aggrieved thereby, they filed Writ Petition Nos.19023 and 19097 of 2005 and this Court while admitting the same granted status quo with regard to possession giving liberty to the authorities under the Act of 1976 to proceed with the matter under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act of 1976, if not already taken up. It appears that the children of late Sandaiah had executed an agreement of sale in favour of Bharani Society on 22.01.1982 and the said Society filed a suit in O.S.No.1181 of 1993 before the VIII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking specific performance of the said agreement of sale. The interim orders passed in the said suit led to the filing of Civil Revision Petitions being C.R.P. Nos.1643, 2013 and 2117 of 2004 before this Court which are said to be pending. Bharani Society also filed Writ Petition No.9618 of 2001 seeking implementation of the order dated 23.01.1992 in Writ Petition No.15124 of 1984 with regard to the allotment of 3,282.15 square meters which was held to be an excess holding in the hands of Devdas, the son of Balamma. Questioning the order dated 17.10.2001 passed in Writ Petition No.9618 of 2001 directing the Government to allot the land, Dasamma filed Writ Appeal No.1763 of 2001 and the Government filed Writ Appeal No.7 of 2002 which are said to be pending. As the Government earmarked the extent of 3,282.15 square meters of land vide the plan dated 25.04.2001 for allotment to the Bharani Society, G.S.Jayakar filed Writ Petition No.586 of 2002 and aggrieved by the interim order passed therein Bharani Society filed Writ Appeal No.69 of 2001 which is also pending. Bharani Society filed Writ Petition No.27063 of 2005 seeking to prevent the change of the sub-divisional plan dated 03.03.2005 and subsequently, it filed Writ Petition No.662 of 2006 questioning the changed sub-divisional plan dated 23.05.2005. Both these writ petitions are also pending. This, then, is the litigative history in the background of which the present dispute arises. The unofficial respondents in the writ petitions, being respondents 3 to 23, were originally members of Bharani Society which had sought specific performance of the agreement of sale executed in its favour by the children of late Sandaiah. However, during the pendency of the said suit they seem to have come to an understanding with the land owners who directly executed registered sale deeds in favour of 24 persons, including the unofficial respondents, during the years 1995 and 1996 alienating a portion of the land in the form of plots. Respondents 3 to 23 got their names deleted from the membership of Bharani Society and also filed a petition in the pending suit and obtained orders for deletion of their names from the array of parties. As such, they ceased to be members of the Bharani Society and also parties to the suit filed by the said Society. The Government of Andhra Pradesh promulgated orders in G.O.Ms.No.455, Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 29.07.2002 under Section 23 of the Act of 1976 for undertaking allotment of excess lands in the occupation of third parties. The Government took note of the fact that excess land owners had resorted to sell their excess land to third parties during the pendency of the ULC proceedings and having regard to the ground realities and the practical aspects of the problems and difficulties encountered in the strict enforcement of the law and bearing in mind the fact that the Act of 1976 was an expropriatory law, the Government as a matter of policy decided to allot such excess land to the respective third parties which were in occupation, subject to the conditions enumerated in the G.O. Respondents 3 to 23 and the other purchasers submitted applications seeking regularization of their occupation over the land purchased by them from the original owners, under the protection of the above G.O. The Government having received the said applications called for a report and after considering the report dated 06.01.2006, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.438, Revenue (UC.IV) Department, dated 12.04.2006 regularizing the occupation of the 24 applicants over the lands indicated as against their names taking due note of the fact that they had paid the amounts prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002. G.O.Ms.No.438 dated 12.04.2006 was challenged by the appellants in Writ Petition No.6693 of 2008. Consequent upon the regularization of their occupation, it appears that the unofficial respondents in the writ petition sought the permission of the Corporation to carry out construction activity in their plots. The first appellant filed a representation on 23.02.2008 before the Corporation in this regard and aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the Corporation in acting thereupon, the appellants had filed Writ Petition No.6700 of 2008. As stated supra, by the common order dated 01.05.2009 the learned Judge dismissed both the writ petitions. Hence, these appeals. Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, raised various grounds of attack challenging the dismissal of the writ petitions. He contended that the regularization under G.O.Ms.No.438 dated 12.04.2006 is in violation of the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002 and accordingly the same could not be sustained. According to the learned counsel, the ULC proceedings had not been concluded by the date of the regularization and in the absence of determination of the excess holdings of the land owners, the regularization of the occupation of the third parties could not be undertaken. He contended that the property claimed by the unofficial respondents could not be identified and taking advantage of the same they were attempting to encroach into the retainable extents of the land owners. He further contended that the unofficial respondents had entered into the transactions with the land owners for purchase of the subject plots knowing fully well that the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were still in progress and therefore they could not be termed to be “bona fide purchasers”. Before adverting to the various contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is relevant to note that the Act of 1976 has been repealed in so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned vide G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 22.04.2008. The repeal of the Act of 1976 came into effect from 27.03.2008. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, the subsequent repeal of the Act of 1976 would not nullify the actions taken earlier during the subsistence of the said Act, including the issuance of orders of regularization in G.O.Ms.No.438 dated 12.04.2006. Therefore, the validity of the said orders would have to be decided notwithstanding the subsequent repeal of the Act of 1976. It is the contention of Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel, that as per clauses 4(b) and (c) of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002 there should not be any litigation pending and if such litigation is pending the same should be withdrawn prior to the regularization of the lands in occupation of third parties. He drew our attention to various cases which are said to be pending, details of which have been narrated hereinabove, and submitted that the Government could not have issued the regularization orders, all the more so, making the same subject to the outcome of the pending writ petitions, W.P.Nos.27063 of 2005 and 662 of 2006. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the clauses relied upon by the learned counsel: “REVENUE (U.C.I) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.455 Dated : 29-7-2002 4. ……………… (b) The allotment shall be subject to withdrawal of all litigations filed either by the occupant of excess land, or the excess land holder, or any other interested person and pending before any Court or Authority relating to the excess land as on the date of this G.O. (c) The excess lands covered by Appeals/W.Ps./ W.As/SLPs or any other suit or proceedings including land grab cases filed by Government and pending before any Court or Authority shall be considered for allotment if applied for under these orders only after such cases are finally disposed of by such Court or Authority and the Government or other party deciding not to carry such order in further appeal or the Government deciding to withdraw litigations in any case.” A reading of the above two provisions would show that they operate in separate spheres. As per clause 4(b) the allotment of the excess land in favour of the third parties who are in occupation thereof shall be subject to withdrawal of all litigations filed either by the occupant of the excess land or by the excess land holder or any other interested person and pending before any Court or Authority as on the date of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002. Clause 4(c) on the other hand pertains to excess lands which are covered by litigations filed by the Government and pending before any Court or Authority which can be considered for allotment only after such cases are finally disposed of or upon their attaining finality or being withdrawn by the Government. In the present case, the unofficial respondents are not parties to any of the pending cases. Further, except for Writ Appeal No.7 of 2002 which was filed by the Government against the order in W.P.No.15124 of 1984 pertaining to the excess land of Devdas alone, whereby it was directed to allot the land to Bharani Society, the Government did not initiate any of the other cases which are pending. As already recorded above, the unofficial respondents are no longer members of the Bharani Society and therefore they are not party to Writ Appeal No.7 of 2002. Therefore, clause 4(c) of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002 has no application whatsoever to the facts of the present litigation and does not have any role to play in the regularization of the occupation of the unofficial respondents over the excess land sold to them. In so far as clause 4(b) is concerned, the same requires that the allotment should be made subject to withdrawal of the litigation which was pending as on the date of the G.O. The unofficial respondents who were the applicants before the Government under the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002 were not parties to any of the pending litigation. Further, the details of the cases which are said to be pending, mentioned supra, clearly show that the lands purchased by the unofficial respondents directly from the land owners, i.e., the father of the appellants and his brothers and sisters stood excluded from the litigation between the Society and the land owners. It is also relevant to note that the impugned orders of regularization in G.O.Ms.No.438 dated 12.04.2006 record the fact that the Court cases were pending. However, the Government was of the opinion that the question of change of sub-divisional plan which is the subject matter of Writ Petition Nos.27063 of 2005 and 662 of 2006, filed by Bharani Society, had no relevance to the regularization of the plots in favour of the unofficial respondents. Having stated so, perhaps by way of abundant caution, the Government made the orders of regularization subject to the outcome of the said writ petitions, though they were not even pending as on the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.455. This, by itself, does not indicate any violation of clause 4(b) of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the appellants do not deny the fact that their father, G.S.Manohar along with his brothers and sisters executed the sale deeds in favour of the unofficial respondents which formed the very basis for their applications for regularization of their occupation under G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002. Being bound by the action of their predecessors-in-title, it is not open to the appellants to seek to reopen the settled issue obtaining under those registered sale transactions. It appears that the appellants, being aware of the fact that the Act of 1976 was being repealed, filed these writ petitions seeking undue benefit by undermining the sale transactions entered into by their predecessors-in-title. Such conduct, to say the very least, is morally lacking. In this endeavour, it appears that the appellants are grasping at straws by trying to assail the steps taken by the unofficial respondents to protect their possession over the land purchased by them by way of regularization under G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002. It is relevant to note that the unofficial respondents parted with valuable monies, as indicated in the Annexure to the impugned G.O., for regularization of their occupation. Further, regularization of such occupation under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002 is only as against the Government and does not in any way affect the claims, if any, of the appellants as against the unofficial respondents with regard to the sale transactions or the validity thereof. The appellants failed to demonstrate before us as to how they are legally aggrieved by the orders of regularization passed by the Government in favour of the unofficial respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants stressed that the lands sold to the unofficial respondents were not identified and taking advantage of the same the unofficial respondents were encroaching into the retainable extents of the land owners thereby causing them irreparable damage. However, copies of the registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.3370 and 3472 of 1995 dated 25.02.1995 and 28.02.1995 respectively, being two of the sale deeds executed by the predecessors-in-title of the appellants in favour of some of the unofficial respondents have been filed before us and they clearly indicate that the property was sold by identification of the house number and plot number with boundaries, indicating the exact extents sold. In such view of the matter, we find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the property cannot be identified. In any event, the alienee under the sale deed can only lay a claim to the exact extent of land purchased by him or her thereunder and cannot seek to encroach upon any land in excess thereof. The apprehension of the appellants that their retainable extents would be knocked away by the unofficial respondents therefore does not stand to reason. The report dated 06.01.2006 submitted by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, which was called for pursuant to the applications submitted by the unofficial respondents, indicates that the said authority took note of the fact that the excess land of the children of late Sandaiah had vested in the Government consequent to the Gazette notification dated 01.03.2005 under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976. The excess lands were quantified at 16,890.32 square meters. Upon enquiry and basing on the report of the Survey Staff it was found that the land which was the subject matter of the applications forms part and parcel of the excess land. Accordingly, the Competent Authority recommended that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002 be extended to the unofficial respondents. It was on the basis of this report that the impugned regularization orders in G.O.Ms.No.438 dated 12.04.2006 were issued. It is therefore manifest that the Government followed the due procedure in regularizing the occupation of the unofficial respondents over the plots purchased by them from the predecessors- in-title of the appellants. The other contention of the learned counsel that the regularization ought not to have been undertaken by the Government when the ULC proceedings were still in progress cannot be accepted. It is relevant to note that the land owners filed Writ Petition Nos.19023 and 19097of 2005 challenging the final orders under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1976 passed on 15.02.2005 and this Court while granting status quo only with regard to possession permitted the authorities to proceed with the matter upto the stage of Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976.