THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. Nos. 6693, 6700 and 6790 of 2009 Common order: Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 6693 and 6790 of 2009 are filed seeking to declare the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 438, Revenue (UC-IV) Department, dated 12.04.2006 for regularization of the plots of the unofficial respondents, as being illegal and arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ULC Act’) and as offending Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. While writ petition in W.P. No. 6693 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 6700 of 2009 seeking to declare the action of the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, in not entertaining the representation dated 23.02.2008 submitted by petitioner No.1 requesting to cancel the building construction permissions issued to the unofficial respondents, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct him to entertain the representation dated 23.02.2008 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. As these three writ petitions are inter-connected and arise out of the same land, which is covered by the declarations filed by the original owners under the ULC Act, they are being disposed of by this common order. Few facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitions may be noted, and they run thus: One late Sri. Sandaiah was the owner of the land in Sy. Nos. 14, 15, 367, 368 and 384 to 387 of Guddimalkapur village, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad. He had two wives by names, Smt. Balamma and Smt. Laxmamma - Through his first wife, namely Smt. Balamma, he had one son by name Sri. Devdas and through his second wife, namely Smt. Laxmamma, he had three sons and two daughters, namely Sri G.S. Manohar, Sri. G.S. Prakasham, Sri. G.S. Jayakar, Smt. Deenamma and Smt. Dashamma. His two wives and children partitioned an extent of Acs. 09-16 guntas of land under a compromise decree passed in C.C.C.A. No. 13 of 1976, dated 08.03.1982, which arose out of the judgment and decree in the suit O.S. No. 447 of 1971. As per the compromise decree, the son of the first wife got an extent of Acs. 2-04 guntas, while the sons of the second wife got an extent of Acs. 2-04 gts. each and the two daughters got an extent of Ac. 0-20 guntas each. Much before partition of the property was effected, as indicated above, under a compromise decree, the children of the first and second wives of late Sri. Sandaiah, after coming into force of the Act, filed declarations under Section 6(1) thereof, the declaration filed by the son of the first wife was registered as C.C. No. B1/2921/76, while the declarations filed by the children of the second wife were registered as C.C. Nos. B1/2922/76, B1/2923/76, B1/2924/76, B1/1165/76 and B1/1166/76. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, having made the computation, passed final orders dated 09.11.1982 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, determining the surplus holding of the son of the first wife at 3,282.15 Sq. mtrs., while the surplus holding of the children of the second wife jointly at 23,684.58 Sq. mtrs. Thereafter, the Gazette notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act, were published on 05.07.1984. Questioning the Gazette Notification dated 05.07.1984, the children of the second wife filed writ petition in W.P. No. 14627 of 1984. This Court by order dated 27.02.1993 allowed that writ petition and quashed the Gazette Notification dated 05.07.1984. While doing so, the Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo, and further directed the Special Officer and Competent Authority, to consider the matter afresh. Questioning the very same Gazette Notification dated 05.07.1984, the son of the first wife also filed writ petition in W.P. No. 15124 of 1984, and this Court by order dated 23.01.1992 disposed of the same, directing the Government to allot land in an extent of 3,282.15 Sq. mtrs. In favour of M/s. Bharani Mutually Aided Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as “Bharani Society”). Pursuant to the orders dated 05.07.1094 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 14627 of 1984, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, conducted fresh enquiry on the declarations of children of the second wife and passed final orders dated 15.02.2005 under Section 8(4) of the Act, determining their surplus land together at 16,572.32 Sq. mtrs. Thereafter, notifications under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) were published in the Gazette on 21.02.2005 and 01.03.2005 respectively. Questioning the final orders dated 15.02.2005, passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Sri. G.S. Manohar (the father of the petitioners), and one of his brothers, namely Sri G.S. Jayakar, filed appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals, who vide orders dated 04.08.2005 dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, they filed writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 19023 and 19097 of 2005, and this Court while admitting the writ petitions, vide separate orders, granted status quo, and gave liberty to the authorities under the ULC Act to proceed with the matter under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the ULC Act, if not already taken up. During pendency of the matters before the ULC authorities, it appears that Bharani Society, based on an agreement of sale dated 22.01.1982, said to have been executed by the original owners, filed suit in O.S. No. 1181 of 1993 on the file of VIII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the original owners, namely the father of the petitioners, his brothers and sisters, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale, which is pending. The interim orders passed in the suit are subject-matter of civil revision petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 1643, 2013 and 2117 of 2004 filed by the contesting parties to the suit, and they are also pending before this Court. Bharani Society filed writ petition in W.P. No. 9618 of 2001, seeking directions to the Government to implement the orders dated 23.01.1992, passed by this Court in W.P. No. 15124 of 1984 and for expediting the allotment of land in their favour. Questioning the orders dated 17.10.2001, passed by this Court therein, directing the Government to allot the land, one of the daughters of the second wife, namely Smt. Dasamma, filed writ appeal in W.A. No. 1763 of 2001, while the Government filed writ appeal in W.A. No. 7 of 2002, which are still pending before a Division Bench of this Court. While so, the Government earmarked an extent of 3,282,.15 Sq. mts of land in the plan dated 25.04.2001 for allotment to Bharani Society. Aggrieved by such action of the Government, one of the brothers of the father of the petitioners, namely Sri. Jayakar, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 586 of 2002, and questioning the interim order dated 04.01.2002 passed therein, Bharani Society, filed writ appeal in W.A. No. 69 of 2001, which is also pending. Bharani Society filed writ petition in W.P. No. 27063 of 2005 seeking to prevent change of sub-divisional plan dated 03.03.2005, and later, they filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 662 of 2006 questioning changed sub-divisional plan dated 23.05.2005. While the matters stood thus, the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 455, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 29.07.2002, providing for regularization of vacant lands. Unofficial respondent Nos. 3 to 24 submitted applications in terms of that G.O. seeking regularization of the plots purchased by them from the original owners. The Government having received the applications of the unofficial respondents, called for a report from the authorities under the ULC Act, and thereupon, issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 438, Revenue (UC.IV) Department, dated 12.04.2006, for regularization of the plots purchased by the unofficial respondents from the original owners, subject to the outcome of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 27063 of 2005 and 662 of 2006. Based on that G.O., the Special Officer and Competent Authority, issued endorsements regularizing the plots purchased by the unofficial respondents from the original owners. Subsequently, based on the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006, the unofficial respondents also obtained permission from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for construction of compound walls around the plots purchased by them. Hence, questioning the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006, for regularization of the plots purchased by the unofficial respondents and the consequential endorsements issued by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, regularizing the plots of the unofficial respondents, as illegal and arbitrary, and aggrieved by the inaction of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, in considering the representation dated 23.02.2008 of the petitioners, for canceling the permission granted to the unofficial respondents for construction of compound walls around their plots, also as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioners, as stated supra, filed the present writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Clause 4(b) and (c) of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, regularization of land can be considered only if the pending litigation in relation to the land sought to be regularized, is withdrawn. Since the plots purchased by the unofficial respondents from the original owners, formed part and parcel of the land, covered by the declarations filed by the original owners of the land under the ULC Act, which is subject matter of dispute in the suit before the civil Court, and C.R.Ps., writ petitions and writ appeals before this Court, and they having not been withdrawn, the learned counsel contended that the Government could not have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006, for regularization of the plots purchased by the unofficial respondents from the original owners, much less subject to the outcome of the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 27063 of 2005 and 662 of 2006, and contended that the same be illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, be quashed and set aside. They further submitted that inasmuch as on 29.07.2002, when the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 455, for regularization of surplus vacant lands, the Special Officer and Competent Authority has not passed final orders, determining the surplus holding of the declarants (original owners), the Government could not have entertained the applications filed by the unofficial respondents for regularization of the plots purchased by them from the original owners of the land. Since the final orders dated 15.02.2005, passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under Section 8(4) of the Act, determining the surplus land of the declarants, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Appeal, vide orders dated 04.08.2005, are subject matter of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 19023 and 19097 of 2005, filed by Sri. G.S. Manohar (the father of the petitioners), and one of his brothers, namely Sri G.S. Jayakar, which are pending, and having regard to the fact that pending disposal of the same, this Court had granted status quo orders, they submitted that the Government could not have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006, for regularizing the plots purchased by the unofficial respondents. They further submitted that the Government could not have issued orders for regularization of the plots purchased by the unofficial respondents in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006 in vacuum, in that the regularization could not have been ordered without there being an approved layout and the plots purchased by the unofficial respondents having not been identified. They further submitted that since the regularization of the plots ordered by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006, was illegal and contrary to the provisions of G.O. Ms. Nos. 455, dated 29.07.2002, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, could not have granted permission to the unofficial respondents to construct compound walls around the plots, and since permission was granted based on an illegal order of regularization, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, ought to have entertained the representation dated 23.02.2008 of the petitioners for cancellation of the construction permissions granted to the unofficial respondents, and the action of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in not entertaining their representation dated 23.02.2008 and not canceling the building construction permission granted to the unofficial respondents, is illegal and arbitrary. They further submitted that even though the ULC Act has since been repealed, but the orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, prior to the repealing of the ULC Act, continue to have legal force, and they can be questioned on any of the legal grounds available to the petitioners, and the unofficial respondents cannot be allowed to contend that since the ULC Act has been repealed, the petitioners are not entitled to question the orders of regularization and that the writ petitions have become infructuous. They further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the unofficial respondents if the orders of regularization are set aside, inasmuch as based on the sale deeds obtained by them, the unofficial respondents are always at liberty to agitate their claim before the appropriate Courts. Hence, they prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006, for regularization of the plots of the unofficial respondents and the consequential endorsements issued by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, regularizing the plots of the unofficial respondents be set aside, and the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation be directed to receive and consider the representation of the petitioners dated 23.02.2008 and cancel the construction permissions granted to the unofficial respondents. Respondent No.3, namely the Special Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, filed detailed counter on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The learned Government Pleader for Assignments reiterating the counter averments submitted the applications of the unofficial respondents for regularization were entertained and scrutinized strictly in terms of the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, after publication of Gazette notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act on 01.03.2005. Since there were no interim directions granted by the Court with regard to the retainable and surplus extent of the declarants, and as the proceedings under the ULC Act in respect of the land stood finalized, the applications for regularization of the unofficial respondents were considered, and no exception can be taken thereto. He further contended that as per Clause 4(a)(ii) of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, allotment shall be considered where the excess land already stood vested in the Government under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act free from all encumbrances and also surplus lands that may vest in the Government in future. He denied the contention of the petitioners that the Government could not entertained the applications of the unofficial respondents for regularization of the plots, and contended that applications for regularization would be entertained if they are made within the time as stipulated in G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, for entertaining the applications, and inasmuch as the unofficial respondents, submitted applications for regularization within the time stipulated, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entertained the applications of the unofficial respondents for regularization of their plots, and no fault can be found with such action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He further contended that though this Court in W.P. Nos. 19023 and 19097 of 2005, has passed status quo order, but it had granted liberty to the authorities under the ULC Act to proceed with the matter under Sections 10(2), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act, if not already taken up. Having regard to the liberty granted, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, proceeded further in the matter, but not beyond Section 10(5) of the ULC Act. He submitted that the sub-division record prepared pursuant to the final orders dated 15.02.2005 passed under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, was a proposed sub-division record, and that the tentative layout of HUDA was not superimposed on the sub-division record. He, therefore, contended that the question of sub-division record overlapping with the tentative layout of HUDA does not arise. At any rate, he submitted that merely because the orders of regularization issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006 are subject to outcome of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 27063 of 2005 and 662 of 2006, it cannot be said that the orders issued by the Government in the said G.O. are illegal and contrary to the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002. On behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 8, 14, 16 and 18 in W.P. Nos.6693 and 6700 of 2008 and respondent Nos. 7 and 18 in W.P. No.6790 of 2008, counter is filed. The learned counsel reiterating the counter averments submitted that the unofficial respondents are originally members of Bharani Society, which based on agreement of sale, said to have been executed by the original owners, filed suit in O.S. No. 1181 of 1993 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale. During the pendency of the suit, the owners of the land, executed registered sale deeds in favour of 24 persons, including the unofficial respondents during 1995 and 1996, alienating some portion of the land as plots. Thereupon, Bharani Society, deleted their names from their membership and filed a petition in the suit seeking deletion of the names of the 24 persons, including the unofficial respondents, in whose favour the original owners of the land executed sale deeds, which was ordered. In view of deletion of their names, the unofficial respondents seized to be the members of Bharani Society as also parties to the suit filed by Bharani Society, which is pending. Hence, he submitted that the litigation in the suit that is pending between the petitioners and Bharani Society, cannot come in the way of the Government regularizing the plots in favour of the unofficial respondents. He further submitted that since no litigation between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents as on the date of issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, except writ petitions relating to sub-division records, were pending, the Government having regard to the provisions of the said G.O., and considering the sale deeds obtained by the unofficial respondents from the original owners, and having regard to the report dated 06.01.2006 of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, considered the cases of the unofficial respondents for regularization of the plots purchased by them from the original owners, and issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006, for regularization of their plots, and no exception can be taken thereto. He further contended that the provisions of Clause 4(b) and 4(c) of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, have no application to the unofficial respondents, because the Government ordered regularization of their plots in the retainable land of the declarants. At any rate, pointing to the provisions of Section 5(1) of the ULC Act, he submitted that where land has been transferred by the owners to bona fide purchasers, then the excess land has to be taken out from the land that has been retained by the owners and the bona fide purchases should not be penalized for no fault of theirs. He denied the submission of the petitioners that despite status quo orders passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 19023 and 19097 of 2005, the authorities under the ULC Act, had proceeded further in the matter, and contended that this Court while passing the status quo order, had granted liberty to the authorities under the ULC Act, to go ahead with the matter under Sections 10(1) (3) and (5), if not already taken up, and in view of such liberty, the action of the Special Officer and Competent Authority in proceeding further in the matter under the ULC Act, cannot be faulted. He submitted that as per the directions of the Court, the authorities under the ULC Act, prepared the sub-division records, and the sub-division record, which is supported by sketch, does not overlap with the tentative layout, approved by HUDA, and therefore, pendency of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 19023 and 19097 of 2005, would not have any bearing on the orders of regularization issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 14.06.2006. He further submitted that the original owners having received the sale consideration and having executed the sale deeds and having put the unofficial respondents in possession of their respective plots, neither they nor their legal heirs, have any right or authority to file writ petitions questioning the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006 for regularization of the plots of the unofficial respondents. He further submitted that even though the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006, for regularization of the plots, were brought to the notice of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 27063 of 2005 and W.P. No. 662 of 2006, the fact remains, they did not choose to question the same immediately, but filed the present writ petitions questioning the said G.O. after lapse of nearly two years, and that too when the unofficial respondents sought to make constructions based on the construction permission obtained by them from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Hence, he prayed that writ petitions be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the revenue officials and the learned Standing Counsel for the some of the unofficial respondents, who filed their counter. The petitioners do not dispute the purchase of the plots made by the unofficial respondents. In fact, their admitted case is that their father, his brothers and sisters, had sold the plots from out of the land in question to the unofficial respondents for consideration without reference to the disputes that are pending before the ULC authorities and the dispute that is pending between them and Bharani Society. However, the counsel for the petitioners contended that since dispute in relation to sub-division record is pending before this Court in W.P. Nos. 27063 of 2005 and 662 of 2006, the Government was not justified in issuing the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 438, dated 12.04.2006, for regularization of the plots of the unofficial respondents, subject to outcome of those writ petitions. In view of the above taken by the petitioners, this Court adjourned the matter on 19.08.2008 and thereafter on several occasions, to enable the parties to settle the matter, however, the counsel reported that the parties have not settled the matter, and prayed that the matter be heard on merits. Therefore, the matter was heard on merits. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the arguments advanced by the counsel on behalf of the respective parties, as noted above, the following principal questions do arise for consideration: 1. In W.P. Nos. 6693 and 6790 of 2009 - Whether the Government is justified in issuing orders in G.O. Ms. No. 438, Revenue (UC-IV) Department, dated 12.04.2006, for regularization of the plots of the unofficial respondents, followed by issuance of Endorsements by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, regularizing the respective plots of the unofficial respondents? and 2. In writ petition in W.P. No. 6700 of 2009 - Whether the Commissioner, Greater Hydedrabad Municipal Corporation, was justified in not entertaining and considering the application dated 23.02.2008 of the petitioners requesting for cancellation of the building construction permission granted to the unofficial respondents. In re question No.1: Admittedly, the unofficial respondents made applications to the Government under G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002 seeking regularization of their plots. The Government having received the applications, called for a report from the Special Officer and Competent Authority, who having got the matter enquired into by his staff, submitted report dated 06.01.2006 stating that the plots covered by the sale deeds, regularization of which is sought by the unofficial respondents, formed part and parcel of the land declared as surplus by the original owners in the declarations filed by them, and that since the land is vacant, their cases for regularization be considered. Based on the registered sale deeds