HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 13221 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioners claim that one Sri. A. Pentaiah, who is the original owner and possessor of the property in an extent of Ac. 28.02 cents in Sy. No. 1011/10, part of Moosapet village, Ranga Reddy District, having received the entire sale consideration, executed an agreement of sale dated 23.12.1982 in their favour. It appears that certain disputes arose between the family members of Sri. A Pentaiah, who resorted to the remedies under the civil law. While so, the petitioners state that Sri. A. Yadaiah, without any authorization from Sri. A. Pentaiah, ﬁled declaration dated 05.03.1983 under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ULC Act’) before the 2nd respondent, namely the Special Oﬃcer and Competent Authority. After an elaborate enquiry, the 2nd respondent, passed orders dated 21.12.1994 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, in F1/69/83, stating that Sri. A. Yadaiah, was holding an extent of 1,36,174.82 Sq. mtrs., of which 1,35,174.82 is surplus. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, issued notice dated 30.08.2001 Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, for surrender of the surplus land. Aggrieved by the above said notice, one Sri. A. Maisayya and 20 others, ﬁled appeal under Section 33 of the ULC Act before the 1st respondent, namely the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, contending that the lands held by Sr. A. Yadaiah, belong to Hindu Undivided Family, and that without hearing the declarant and the aﬀected parties and the impleaded petitioners, the order dated 21.12.1994 was passed. The 1st respondent vide orders 22.04.2003 remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent, who again after conducting fresh enquiry, passed orders dated 10.05.2004, declaring that Sri. A. Yadaiah, who represents the entire family, holds surplus land in an extent of 82,174.82 Sq, mts., in Sy. Nos. 838, 873 to 875 and 1011/10, Kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.05.2004, passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners herein ﬁled appeal under Section 33 of the ULC Act, before the 1st respondent, claiming that they being purchasers of some portion of the land covered by the proceedings under the ULC Act, from the original purchasers, and they having been put in possession of the said land, are entitled to be issued notice before an order is passed by the 2nd respondent, and as such, the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the order impugned therein, is illegal and arbitrary. The 1st respondent, having considered the said contention, vide the orders dated 12.07.2006, dismissed the appeal inter alia holding that they are not entitled to be given any notice as they are not the aﬀected parties. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the original owner of the property, namely Sri. A. Pentaiah, has sold some portion of the land covered by the ULC proceedings by executing an agreement of sale dated 23.10.1982 and he having put them in possession thereof, they are entitled to issuance of notice by the 2nd respondent in the proceedings before him, and the action of the 2nd respondent in passing orders declaring the surplus land and issuing notice to surrender the surplus land, without issuing any notice to them, as upheld by the 1st respondent in appeal under the impugned order dated 12.07.2006, is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that the 1st petitioner is aged about 72 years, and because of his ill-health, the petitioners could not ﬁle the writ petition questioning the impugned order dated 12.07.2006 immediately. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order dated 12.07.2006, passed by the 1st respondent, be set aside, and the unoﬃcial respondents be directed not to make any constructions in the land sold to the petitioners by the original owner, namely Sri. A. Pentaiah. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and perused the impugned order. The contention of the petitioners that since the original owner had sold some portion of the land covered by the ULC proceedings to them by executing agreement of sale dated 23.10.1982 and also put them in possession thereof, they are entitled to issuance of notice before an order is passed by the 2nd respondent for surrender of the land found to be surplus, cannot be accepted. May be, the original owner of the land had sold some portion of the land covered by the ULC proceedings to them, but the fact remains, such alienation was not permissible under the ULC Act, which by then had already come into force. Therefore, any alienation made would be contrary to the provisions of the ULC Act. Be that as it may, the petitioners, admittedly, are not parties to the original proceedings under the ULC Act, which resulted in passing of order dated 21.12.1994 by the 2nd respondent. However, it appears that they got impleaded petition, in the appeal ﬁled by Sri. A. Yadaiah and others before the 1st respondent, questioning the order dated 21.12.1994 and the notice dated 30.08.2001, issued by the 2nd respondent, for surrender of the land. The 1st respondent vide order dated 22.04.2003, allowed the said appeal, and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent, who having considered the matter, vide orders dated 10.05.2004, declared that Sri. A. Yadaiah, who represents the entire family, holds surplus land to an extent of 82,174.82 Sq. Mtrs., in Sy. Nos. 838.873 to 875 and 1011/10 of Kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Since the land alleged to have been sold by the original owner Sri. A. Pentaiah, under agreement of sale, is said to be covered by Sy. No. 1011/10, one of the survey numbers covered by the ULC proceedings, which were declared to be surplus, the petitioners ﬁled appeal before the 1st respondent against the order dated 10.05.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent, contending that no notice whatsoever was issued by the 2nd respondent before passing the order declaring the surplus land and for its surrender. A person, who claims that he is entitled to be given notice of the proceedings under the ULC Act, should fulﬁl three conditions – he should be either a party in the original proceedings or his or her legal representative; he should have interest in the property; and he should be prejudicially aﬀected by the order. The petitioners, as stated above, are not party to the original proceedings, and as such, they are strangers to the property, more particularly when the agreement of sale dated 23.12.1982, entered into by the original owner by the petitioners, is not only an unregistered one, but was executed in contravention of the provisions of the ULC Act. In fact, a learned Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 1290 of 1981, vide order dated 16.07.1983, considered the question as to whether a person under the ULC Act, is entitled to be issued notice before an order thereunder is passed, in the light of the provisions of the ULC Act and placing reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in G. Ramaiah v. Mohammaunnisa Begum (1980 II An.W.R. 197), he held that only the owner has been recognized as being entitled to a notice, and no strangers or interlopers can expect issuance of a notice. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners are strangers, in that they are not in possession of the land claimed by them, they merely base their claim on the basis of agreement of sale dated 23.12.1982. The petitioners except stating that they purchased some portion of the property covered by the proceedings under the ULC Act, have not placed any material to show that they are in possession of the property, and that by reason of such possession, they had interested in the property, and therefore, are entitled to be issued notice before an order declaring the holding of surplus land and its surrender is passed. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the 1st respondent, refusing to interfere with the order passed by the 2nd respondent, on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioners before passing order dated 21.12.1994 as also the consequential notice dated 30.08.2001. Apart from this, the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent, as far back as on 12.07.2007, and except pleading ill-ness of the 1st petitioner, the petitioners have not stated any reason for not assailing the said order immediately. In the above view of the matter, I ﬁnd no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dated: 28th July 2008 KSR