THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 19178 of 2008 Oral order: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted to by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the subject matter of the writ petition is squarely covered by the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 11613 of 2008 dated 04.08.2008 and W.P. Nos. 12701 and 12717 of 2008, dated 04.08.2008. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the following relief: To issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the (i) The proceedings No.H1/6823/76 dt. 07.06.2007 [Sec. 8(4) orders] issued by the 1st respondent; (ii) Notification dt. 22.08.2007 under Section 10(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 published in A.P. Gazette Extraordinary No. 258 on dt. 29.08.2007; (iii) Notification dt. 23.10.2007 under Section 10(3) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 published in A.P. Gazette Extraordinary No. 303 on dt. 26.10.2007; and Notice dt. 20.11.2007 in proceedings No.H1/6823/76 under Section 10(5) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 issued by the 1st respondent authority, and all consequential actions taken by the respondent authorities pursuant to the above said impugned orders, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently set aside all the above impugned orders and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner states that he along with two others purchased an extent of Acs. 2.14½ guntas of agricultural land in Sy. No. 10 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District from the original namely Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy and his son, namely Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, under registered sale deed dated 17.03.1989. That the said property having been partitioned, an extent of Acs. 0.31½ fell to his share in the H.U.F. The petitioner states that since the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the land purchased by him. It is his case that though he is in possession and enjoyment of the same, the 3rd respondent, namely the Special Officer and Competent Authority, without issuing any notice to him, has computed the land purchased by him, in the land holding of the original owner, namely Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, in the declarations filed by him, and declared the land purchased by him, as surplus, under the impugned orders, and issued further consequential orders and notifications. He submits that he being a person interested in the land, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, was under an obligation to issue notices to him, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in K.B. Surender Kumar v. Special Officer and Competent Authority[1]. He submits that the said orders having been passed against Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, who is a dead person, are non est in the eye of law. That the land purchased by him, being less than Acs. 5.00, he is entitled to the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 733 dated 31.10.1988, which provided for retention of Acs. 5.00 of agricultural land. This Court in W.P. No. 11613 of 2008 dated 04.08.2008 and W.P. Nos. 12701 and 12717 of 2008, dated 04.08.2008, having considered all the contentions, as raised by the petitioner, in this writ petition, held that the impugned orders and notifications issued by the 3rd respondent against the original owner, namely Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, who is a dead person, are null and void, that the petitioners having purchased the land in question from the original owner, and their names having been mutated in the revenue records, are persons interested in the land, and as such, were entitled to issuance of notice, and non-issuance and non-service of notice by the authority vitiated the entire proceedings, that the lands purchased by the petitioners being less than Acs. 5.00 were entitled to the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. No. 733 dated 31.10.1988, and that the change of land use for purposes other than “agricultural”, did not violate the conditions of the Certificate obtained by the original owner under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, since the land in question was brought under urban agglomeration area subsequently. Holding so, this Court set aside the various notices, orders and notifications, impugned in the said writ petitions. Since the petitioner also raised similar questions, as were raised by the petitioners in W.P. No. 11613 of 2008 and W.P. Nos. 12701 & 12717 of 2008, following the orders dated 04.08.2008, passed therein, this writ petition is also allowed, by and in terms of the said orders, and as a consequence thereof, all the notices, orders and notifications, impugned in this writ petition are set aside. While communicating this order, the Registry shall annex the copies of the orders in W.P. No. 11613 of 2008 dated 04.08.2008 and W.P. Nos. 12701 and 12717 of 2008, dated 04.08.2008. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 29th September, 2008 KSR [1] 2000 (4) ALT 694