IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.24412 of 2001 Between: T.Subrahmanyam and another. … Petitioners And State of A.P., through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and six others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Venkata Mayur for Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1 to R.3 None for R.4 to R.7. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 13-6-1986 and 3-9-2001 passed by respondents 3 and 2 respectively. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Special Deputy Collector in the Oﬃce of the Special Oﬃcer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, it is averred that following the order passed by respondent No.2, revised ﬁnal order under Section 8(4) and ﬁnal statement under Section 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) were issued while allowing the share of the major son Sri T.V.Satyanarayana, and 1000 Sq.meters under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act to each of the individuals; and that the house premises at Tarnaka and the lands to an extent of 3083.53 Sq. meters and 672.72 Sq. meters each in Survey Nos.163/2 and 165/2 bearing plot Nos.70,71,64,65,58 and 59 situated at Mailardevpally village, were declared as surplus held by the land holder. It is further stated that after completing the required formalities, the case was processed upto 10(6) stage and possession of surplus land was taken and handed over to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajendranagar on 20-10-1987 as the surplus land got vested in the Government with eﬀect from 10-7-1987. As regards the claim of the petitioners for granting exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31-10-1988, it is stated that the petitioners are not entitled to the beneﬁts of the said G.O., as the land got vested with the Government, prior to issuance of the said G.O., with the passing of order under Section 8(4) of the Act on 13-6-1986 and possession of the surplus land was taken over prior to issuance of the said G.O. No reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting these allegations. Having heard Sri Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record, I do not ﬁnd any error in the orders passed by respondents 3 and 2 warranting interference of this Court in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP Nos.30838 of 2001 and 2855 of 2006 are dismissed as infructuous. ------------------------- ----------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 22-9-2008 MNR