IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7082 of 2006 Between: 1 Gautam Venkatamma, w/o late Gutam Raji Reddy, r/o 2-10-144, Waddepalli, Warangal District. 2 Gutam Devendar Reddy, s/o late Gutam Raji Reddy, r/o 2-10-144, Waddepalli, Warangal District. 3 Gutam Mahender Reddy, s/o late Gutam Raji Reddy, r/o 2-10-144, Waddepalli, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONERS AND Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent in not passing orders on the application dt.24-11-2005 submitted by the s with a request to pass orders under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act is highly arbitrary bad and illegal and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper. Counsel for the s: MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The husband of the first petitioner by name late Gutam Raji Reddy filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of lands in different survey numbers of Waddepalli Village to an extent of Ac.3.03 guntas. On noticing that substantial extent of land was declared as excess, she submitted a representation dated 24.11.2005 stating inter alia that G. Raji Reddy has declared certain lands that did not belong to him, and that no order has been passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. It was also alleged that further proceedings cannot be taken under the Act without there being an order under Section 8(4) of the Act. Ultimately, the respondent was requested to pass orders under Section 8(4) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that no action has been taken upon their representation. The respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated that though a draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued on 25.10.1977, the declarant did not submit any objection or explanation, and in that view of the matter, the final statement under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 9.12.1977. It is tacitly admitted that no order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed. The respondent further mentioned that possession of the excess land was taken on 20.08.1990. A reference is also made to the enquiry conducted on the proceedings initiated by the petitioner wherein the possession of the petitioner over the land was admitted. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Assignment. The specific plea of the petitioners was that no order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed in relation to the land declared by the husband of the first petitioner. She made a request to the respondent to pass an order under Section 8(4) of the Act, so that she can work out her remedies. The respondent categorically admitted that no order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it is stated as under. At this stage, Smt.Gutam Venkatamma W/o. late Gutam Raji Reddy filed W.P.No.25579 of 2002 before this Hon’ble Court to declare the action of the respondents in not allotting vacant land declared in file No.A3/10/76 to an extent of 6000 Sq. Meters, in Sy.No.623 of Waddepally, Warangal, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002 is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to allot vacant land in File No.A3/10/76 to an extent of 6000 Sq. Meters. In W.P.No.25579 of 2002, the Hon’ble High Court has passed interim direction not to dispossess for a period of four weeks vide orders dated, 26.12.2002 and subsequently extended the interim order until further orders vide order dt.13.01.2003. The writ petition is still pending. In several matters, this Court and different High Courts held that the actual adjudication of the rights of the parties under the Act takes place only in an order to be passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. Section 9 is only a statement in a prescribed form and it resembles a decree. The determination of rights of the parties with reference to the provisions of the Act through a reasoned order has to take place under Section 8(4) of the Act. It was also held that any proceedings under the Act, be it under Sections 9, 10 or 11 of the Act, without there being an order under Section 8(4) of the Act, are untenable and do not give raise to any legal consequences. Once it emerges that no order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed in respect of the lands declared by the husband of the first petitioner, there does not exist any legal or factual basis for the respondent to proceed against the said land. There is no possibility for the respondent to rectify the factual defect. However, the Act has since been repealed. Therefore the Writ Petition is allowed and the land, which is the subject matter of the declaration filed by the husband of the first petitioner, shall not be covered by the provisions of the Act. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 18th April, 2009 Js.