IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12302 of 1999 Between: 1 Nemuri srinivas(Died). 2 Neuri Sayanna, s/o. N.Balraj, R/o. 9-109,Lothukunta,Secunderabad, 3 N.Laxminarayana, S/o. N.Balraj, R/o. 9-109,Lothukunta,Secunderabad, 4 Nemuri Dayanand, S/o. N.Balraj, R/o. 9-109,Lothukunta,Secunderabad, 5 N.Anuradha, w/o. late N.srinivas, R/o. 9-109,Lothukunta,Secunderabad, brought on record as LR's of he deceased petitioner No.1 as per court order dt.3.12.99in W.P.M.P. 31243/99. 6 N.Sai Venkataranyana, S/o. lateN Srinivas, R/o. 9-109,Lothukunta,Secunderabad, brought on record as LR's of he deceased petitionerNo.1 as per court order dt.3.12.99in W.P.M.P. 31243/99. 7 N.Sai Nagaraj, S/o. late N.Srinivas, R/o. 9-109,Lothukunta,Secunderabad, brought on record as LR's of he deceased petitioner No.1 as per court order dt.3.12.99in W.P.M.P. 31243/99. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Special office & Competent Authority Urban land Ceiling , Chandra vihar, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 Govt. of A.P. REP . by it's secretary,Revenue (ULD) depatment Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, govt. of A.P., Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records and quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in issuing notification dt.10.2.1994 issued under section 10(1) and Notification dt.12.5.1994 under Section 10(3) and the order for surrender dt.16.7.1994 issued under section 10(5) of the Act as well as the name dated 24.5.1999 issued under Section 11(8) of the Act as null and void and quash the entire proceedings of the Respondent commenced under C.C.No.F2/7928/76 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: One Smt. N. Kausalya purchased an extent of about one acre of land in Survey No.805/1 of Mettuguda, Secunderabad and a house therein bearing No. 12-8-275/1 through a registered sale deed dated 19-05-1969. The Mettuguda Revenue Village is part of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. As required under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’), Smt. Kausalya filed a declaration under Section 6-1 of the Act before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, the 1st respondent on 14- 09-1976. The same was taken up as CC 7928/76. The declaration was processed. However, before any order under Section 8 (4) of the Act was passed, the declarant namely Smt. Kausalya died on 29-12- 1986. Obviously, not being aware of this fact, the 1st respondent passed an order under Section 8 (4) on 24-08-1993. This was followed by a statement under Section 9 and various notifications under Section 10 of the Act. It was only when notice under Section 10 (5) dated 16-07-1994 was returned with an endorsement that the addressee expired, the 1st respondent became aware of the same and he brought on record the petitioners herein on 03-09-1998. The petitioners challenged various proceedings issued under Section 10 of the Act in relation to their land. Miss Archana, learned counsel appearing for Sri P. Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sole basis for the proceedings under the Act is an order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act and such an order was passed several years after the death of the declarant and the proceedings are void ab initio. She contends that the declarant who is the predecessor in title of the petitioners died on 27-12-1986, whereas the order under Section 8(4) was passed on 24-08-1993. She further contends that in view of repeal of the Act, it is not permissible for the respondents to take any further steps. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the fact of death of the declarant was not brought to the notice of his clients and as soon as they became aware of it, necessary steps were taken to bring the legal representatives on record. He contends that with the publication of notification under Section 10 (3), the land vested in the Government and that an extent of 287.74 sq mts was taken possession of on 27-03-1999. It hardly needs an emphasis that the Act is expropriatory in nature. Therefore, every step taken under it must be strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions and any deviation from it would have the effect of nullifying the proceedings. On finding that the land held by her is within the urban agglomeration, Smt. Kausalya filed declaration under Section 6-1 of the Act in the year 1976 itself. For more than one and a half decades, the respondents did not move in the matter. The declarant died on 29- 12-1986. It was only on the assumption that the no reply was received to the notices issued on 28-12-1992, an order was passed under Section 8(4) holding that an extent of 287.74 sq mts held by Smt Kausalya in excess of ceiling limits and a statement under Section 9 was issued on 24-08-1993. Obviously, because the concerned person was not alive, the respondents did not receive any protest and they issued notices or notifications, as the case may be, one after the other under different sub-sections of Section 10. In all fairness, the 1st respondent stated in the counter affidavit that though the declarant died in the year 1986, they were not aware of the death till 1995. The legal representatives are stated to have been brought on record in the year 1998 in the notice issued under Section 10 (5). That however does not cure the defect. The order dated 24-08- 1993 passed under Section 8 (4) of the Act which constitutes the basis i s void ab initio since it was issued against a dead person. Such a void order cannot give rise to any further rights or obligations. Therefore, the various notifications or notices issued under different sub-sections of Section 10 are equally void and all of them are liable to be set aside. The respondents do not have any opportunity to continue the proceedings by bringing the petitioners on record even to pass a fresh order under Section 8 (4). The reason is that the Act itself was repealed and the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature passed a resolution in the year 2008 adopting the same. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and it is held that the respondents are not entitled to proceed against any property held by late Smt. Kausalya and by the petitioners after her death. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 05-12-2008 ks