THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2258 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioners seek a mandamus declaring the action of the fifth respondent – Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Guntur, in not accepting their applications for allotment of lands purchased by them in terms of the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.Nos.455 and 456, Revenue (U.C.I) Department, dated 29.07.2002 and also the action of respondents 2 to 4 in seeking to dispossess them from their house-sites admeasuring 400 sq.yards and 444 sq.yards respectively, covered by Survey No.270/A of Koratipadu Village, Guntur Municipal Corporation, as illegal and arbitrary. Both the petitioners claim that they are owners of the sites admeasuring 400 sq.yards and 444 sq.yards respectively, forming part of Survey No.270/A of Koratipadu Village, Guntur Municipal Corporation, and they have purchased the same from the original declarant, by name, B.Kotaiah under registered sale deeds, dated 28.02.1984 and 21.10.1983 respectively. It is stated that since the date of purchase, they are in possession of the said lands and as it is stated that the said lands, belonging to original declarant Sri B.Kotaiah, were declared as excess, they wanted to seek regularization by filing applications as per the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.Nos.455 and 456, dated 29.07.2002, but the respondents are not receiving the same and on the other hand, there is interference by respondents 1 to 4 with the possession and enjoyment of the lands, which have been bona fidely purchased by them from the original declarant. Counter-affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the first petitioner stated to have purchased an extent of 400 sq.yards of land covered by Survey No.270/A from the declarant, B.Kotaiah, on 28.02.1984, but the second petitioner purchased 444 sq.yards of land covered by very same Survey Number from Smt. Talakayala Mutyalamma, Wife of Yesobu, on 21.10.1983, as such, it can be said that the second petitioner has not purchased the land from the declarant, B.Kotaiah, and that as seen from the boundaries mentioned in the documents, the lands, which have been purchased by the petitioners, are part of the land admeasuring 6219 sq.meters covered by Survey No.270/A and were declared as surplus. It is further stated that without issuing any notice under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioners have purchased the same on bogus assessment numbers. It is further stated that as the said lands, belonged to the declarant, B.Kotaiah, were found to be in excess, the respondents have taken possession of the same on 30.12.2002 and as it was suitable for allotment of sites, a layout was prepared and allotments were made to an extent of 840 sq.yards to the legal heirs of police personnel, who were killed in anti-extremists activities. The respondents have also given particulars of the allottees. It is further stated that at no point of time, existence of structures was mentioned by the declarant and that the respondents have taken possession of the lands under Section 10(6) of the Act on 30.12.2002 by following due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act i.e. publication of declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act. It is also stated that as the excess land was already allotted to third parties, the petitioners cannot seek regularization by filing applications under G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002. Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the lands in question, which are part of the land covered by Survey No.270/A, belonged to the declarant, by name, B.Kotaiah, the land covered by Survey No.270/A falls in urban agglomeration of Guntur City and the original declarant has filed declaration under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act. On the declaration filed by B.Kotaiah, the orders were already passed declaring the land admeasuring 6219 sq.meters of the aforesaid survey number as surplus and after publication of declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act, by which, the land vests with the Government, possession of the land was taken under Section 10(6) of the Act on 30.12.2002. It is to be noted that though the petitioners stated to have purchased the aforesaid land from the original declarant, the sale deed of the first petitioner was executed by the original declarant, and the second petitioner purchased the land from Smt. Talakayala Mutyalamma but not the original declarant. When the land was in urban agglomeration, there is a prohibition to enter into agreements or to transfer such land by the holder under Section 5(3) of the Act and any such agreement or sale effected in contravention of the provisions of the Act is null and void. It is further to be noticed that after taking possession on 30.12.2002, the respondents have divided the said land into plots by obtaining approval of layout and allotted the said land by way of plots to the third parties, who were not before this Court. It is also to be noticed that the original declarant is not made as a party to the writ petition. Although it is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents are not accepting their applications for allotment of lands purchased by them in terms of the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.Nos.455 and 456, dated 29.07.2002, as much as it is stated that after taking possession of the land, it was allotted to the third parties, in their absence, no directions be given to the respondents to receive the applications of the petitioners under G.O.Ms.Nos.455 and 456 to regularize their possession. As very purchase by the petitioners is after the Act came into force and as the land in question falls within the urban agglomeration, the holder of the land cannot acquire any right in view of the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act. In any event, as it is stated that the land was already allotted to the third parties, no directions can be given as prayed for by the petitioners to the respondents to receive their applications in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos.455 and 456, dated 29.07.2002, so as to consider for regularization. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition for issuance of any direction by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however, made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed under the Act, it is open to them to question the same. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th DECEMBER, 2010. kvni