IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6460 of 2009 Between: 1 T.Naga Mallaiah, S/o. Late Mallaiah, R/o. HJ.No.1-20, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 T.Anjaiah S/o. Late Chandraiah, R/o. H.No.1-116, Durganagar Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 T.Gandaiah, S/o. Late Chandraiah, R/o.H.No.1-100, Durganagar Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 T.Balasetti Goud, S/o.Late Laxmaiah Goud, Durganagar Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 T.Preamdas Goud, S/o.Late Laxmaiah Goud, Durganagar Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 T.Devadas Goud, S/o.Late Laxmaiah Goud, Durganagar Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 T.Laxmamma, W/o.late Krihsna Goud, Durganagar Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 T.Balaraj Goud, W/o.late Krihsna Goud, Durganagar Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 9 T.Sivaraj Goud, S/o.late Krihsna Goud, Durganagar Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 10 T.Dhanraj Goud, S/o.late Krihsna Goud, Durganagar Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 11 T.Chinaraj Goud, S/o.late Krihsna Goud, Durganagar Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl. Secretary Revenue (ULC) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner Appeals, O/o. Chief Commissioner of Land Adminsitratio A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, III Floor, Chandra Vihar Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad at nampally. 6 The Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer) Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. 7 The Station House Officer, Rajendranagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a. to declare that the 10(6) proceedings dt. 3-4-2007 issued in C.C.Nos. D1/7579, 7580, 7581, 7582/76 in respect of lands in Sy.Nos. 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 159 arriving by the Government , situated at Bandalaguda Khalsa Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad /District as null and void in view of the orders passed by the Commissioner Appeals in appeal Nos. Hyd/36 to 39/2007, dated 22.03.2007 and the pendency of the appeals as on 27.03.2008 before the Appellate Authority; b. to declare that any proceedings of respondents in C.C.Nos. D1/7579, 7580, 7581, 7582/76 against petitioners lands in Sy.Nos. 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 159 situated at Bandlaguda Khalsa Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District are abated as per Government circular Memo No.17377/Uc-I(1)/2008-1, dated 24-4-2008 and section 4 of the Repeal Act 15 of 1999. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.C.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6460 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners owned lands in Survey Nos.152 to 159 of Bandlaguda Khalsa Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad. Since the land is within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, they filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). Orders were passed under Section 8(4) of the Act by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, the third respondent herein, holding that the petitioners’ are in possession of lands in excess of ceiling limits. Notices were also issued under Section 10(5) of the Act. At that stage, the petitioners preferred appeals. One of the grounds urged by them is that the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.733, Revenue, dated 31.10.1988, was not extended to them. The appellate authority, the second respondent herein, allowed the appeals through a common order, dated 13.02.1995, and had set aside the notices issued under Section 10(5) of the Act. The third respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh. Subsequently, the notices under Section 10(5) of the Act were issued afresh on 06.02.2007. Once again, the petitioners preferred appeals before the second respondent. The appeals were entertained and stay of further proceedings granted on 22.03.2007. During the pendency of the appeals, the Act was repealed and accordingly, the appeals were closed as abated vide orders, dated 02.05.2008, passed by the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that the third respondent is trying to dispossess them from their land, on the basis of the proceedings, dated 03.04.2007, under which, possession is said to have been taken under Section 10(6) of the Act. The petitioners contend that when in fact, the appellate authority has granted stay of further proceedings in consequence of notice, dated 06.02.2007, under Section 10(5) of the Act, the question of taking the possession does not arise. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners were held to be having land, in excess of ceiling limits. They did not challenge the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, but, they approached the second respondent feeling aggrieved by the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. The appeals were allowed on 13.02.1995 and the notices were set aside. The matter was remanded to the third respondent for fresh consideration in the context of extension of benefit under G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988. The fresh notice under Section 10(5) of the Act came to be issued only on 06.02.2007. Once again, the petitioners preferred appeals and the second respondent granted stay through his order, dated, 22.03.2007. Either not being aware of the stay or in utter violation thereof, the third respondent issued proceedings, dated 03.04.2007, under Section 10(6) of the Act, on the basis of the notice, dated 06.02.2007, under Section 10(5) of the Act. Here again, the purport of the proceedings is to confer power upon one Mr.R.Sathya Babu to take the possession. It is not known as to whether possession has in fact been taken or not. Even assuming that the possession has been taken in pursuance of the proceedings, dated 03.04.2007, it becomes untenable, the reason is that the proceedings came to be issued at a time when the stay granted by the second respondent was operating. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the lands held by the petitioners cannot be proceeded under the provisions of the Act in any way. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.26.03.2009 VGB