THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 19652 of 2007 O r d e r: The petitioner, namely M/s. Fertilizer Corporation of India Employees Co-operative Housing Society, represented by its Secretary, have filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to grant the following relief: To issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring as void and unenforceable the final statement issued by the 2nd respondent in proceedings in C.C. No. H1/1344/76 dated 04.06.2005 in respect of land in an extent of Acs. 20.00 in Sy. Nos. 124/2 and 125/2 situated at Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as confirmed in revision by the 1st respondent in proceedings in Memo No.25101/UC.II(3)/05-4 dated 07.09.2007 as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the rules made thereunder, vitiated by principles of natural justice, offending Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, by declaring that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 does not apply to the petitioner and its holding, and pass such other or further order or orders, as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner states that one Smt. Shanta Hemraj is the original pattadar of agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 15.32 guntas in Sy. No. 124 and Acs. 15.26 guntas in Sy. No. 125 of Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed vide Document No. 332/1964, dated 25.06.1964, after obtaining permission from the then Tahsildar, vide proceedings in Dis. No. A3/1312/64, dated 22.05.1964. After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ULC Act’), the petitioner states that the original pattedar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the declarant’), filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, before respondent No.2, namely the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. H1/1344/76, with respect to the land held by her, by describing the nature of the land as “agricultural”, even though under the provisions of the ULC Act, she was not required to file any such declaration. While so, the petitioner states that HUDA issued land use certificate to the declarant, vide letter No. 1517/81/MPU/HUDA, dated 25.05.1980, certifying that the user of the land in question, in the master plan, is described as “agricultural”. Subsequent thereto, the government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 391, Municipal Administration, dated 23.09.1980, extending the master plan to Gachibowli village. Even though the master plan was extended to Gachibowli village, wherein the lands in question, are situated, but still in the master plan, the user of the land in question, was shown not changed, and it was shown as “agricultural”. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner states that the declarant out of Acs. 35.00 of land held by her, she entered into an agreement of sale with them on 03.11.1980, for sale of Acs. 20.00 of land i.e. Acs. 5.18 guntas in Sy. No. 124 and Acs. 14.22 guntas in Sy. No. 125 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the land in question’), in their favour. The declarant, on 12.02.1981, submitted representation to respondent No.2, requesting him to inform as to what happened to her declaration. Responding to her request, the petitioner states that respondent No.2 on 05.05.1981, informed the declarant that as the nature of the land held by her, was “agricultural”, the provisions of ULC Act are not applicable. Thereafter, the declarant, executed registered sale deed, with respect to the land in question, in favour of the petitioner, vide Document No. 4453/1981 on 04.06.1981. After purchasing the land in question, the petitioner states that on 12.07.1981, they applied to the Gram Panchayat, Kothaguda, for sanction of layout. The Gram Panchayat, Kothaguda, having considered and examined the layout, sanctioned the same on 11.08.1981. In accordance with the sanctioned layout, the petitioner states that they divided the land into plots and allotted them to their members, who having purchased the same from the petitioner, are in possession and enjoyment thereof, since the date of purchase. The petitioner states the provisions of Section 19(1)(v) of the ULC Act, provide that nothing in Chapter III of the ULC Act, shall apply to any “vacant land” held by a Housing Co-operative Society. As the land in question, was brought within the limits of HUDA, the petitioner states that they applied to HUDA for regularization of the Gram Panchayat layout. While so, the petitioner states that the government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 583, Municipal Administration Department, dated 07.11.1996, converting the user of the land in question from “agricultural” to “residential” after receiving the development charges from the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner states that on the request of HUDA, the Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, submitted report in Lr. No. G-2/GPL(B)/434/97, dated 18.08.1997, for regularization of the Gram Panchayat layout. Thereafter, HUDA addressed letter in Lr. No. 7163/P7/RL/HUDA/97, dated 21.07.1998, requesting the petitioner to submit ULC clearance, for regularizing the Gram Panchayat layout. On 23.03.2001, the petitioner applied for ULC clearance, narrating the facts to respondent No.2. On 31.08.2001, the petitioner addressed reminder letter to respondent No.2, requesting him to give ULC clearance. Again vide letter No. 1778/P7/RL/H/01, dated 03.11.2001, HUDA informed the petitioner to submit ULC clearance to regularize the Gram Panchayat layout. The petitioner states that on 07.05.2005, respondent No.2, instead of giving clearance in respect of the land held by them, activated the declaration filed by the declarant in C.C. No. H1/1344/76, and it is the case of the petitioner that, without issuing any notice to them, issued draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act. Thereafter, on 04.06.2005, issued final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act. On 21.06.2005, respondent No.2, issued notice to the petitioner, calling upon them, to get the land in question, regularized in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, by paying regularization charges, which was received by the petitioner on 24.06.2005. Thereafter, on 24.06.2005, the notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, was published in the official gazette. The petitioner states that on coming to know about the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act and final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, and the notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, on 19.07.2005, they filed their objections before respondent No.2, requesting him to modify/rescind the said proceedings, as the same are without jurisdiction and were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2, without considering the same, on 22.07.2005, published notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, stating that the lands in question stands vest with the Government w.e.f. 06.08.2005. The petitioner, therefore, questioning the final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, and the proceedings that preceded and followed the said final statement, filed revision under Section 34 of the ULC Act, before respondent No.1, namely the Government, requesting them to revise the orders of respondent No.2, inter alia contending that the entire ULC proceedings in relation to the land in question, right from the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, are without jurisdiction and invalid, because they being a Housing Co-operative Society, are exempted from the applicability of the provisions of Chapter – III of the ULC Act, which contains Sections 3 to 24 of the ULC Act, with respect to the land in question purchased and held by them. However, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1, without considering the contentions and grounds urged by them in support of the revision, vide proceedings dated 07.09.2007, rejected the revision filed by the petitioner and confirmed the final statement and orders dated 04.06.2005 passed by respondent No. 2. Hence, the petitioner, questioning the said orders dated 07.09.2007, passed by respondent No.1, rejecting their revision and confirming the orders dated 04.06.2005, passed by respondent No.2, in the declaration filed by the declarant, filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner-society submitted that as the land held by the declarant was “agricultural”, as is evident from the declaration filed by her under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act and the certificate dated 05.05.1981, issued by respondent No.2, under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, permitting the declarant to sell the land, the provisions of ULC Act are not applicable, and as such, the orders passed by respondent No.2 on the declaration filed by the declarant, as confirmed by respondent No.1 in revision, being wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the petitioner is a Housing Co- operative Society, and since after purchasing the land in question under registered sale deed dated 04.06.1981 from the declarant, the petitioner obtained sanction of the layout from the Gram Panchayat, Kothaguda, on 11.08.1981, and converted the user of the land from “agricultural” to “residential”, having regard to the provisions of Section 19 (1)(v) of the ULC Act, the land in question purchased and held by the petitioner, is exempted from the applicability of the provisions of Chapter III of the ULC Act, which contains Sections 8 to 24, and as such, all the orders passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1 in revision, being illegal and without jurisdiction, are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that respondent No.2, is aware of the purchase made by the petitioner of the land in question from the declarant, as is evident from the order dated 07.05.2005 passed by him, wherein he made a reference to the purchase made by the petitioner and their members being in possession of the plots. However, before passing the said order, respondent No.2, has not issued notice as is required under Rule 5 of the ULC Rules. Therefore, the order dated 07.05.2005, passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, in revision, being violative of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. In support of this argument, he relied on the decision of this Court in K.B. Surendra Kumar vs. Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling[1], which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 541 and 641 of 2000. He also relied on judgment of this Court in Tahera Yousuf Kadri v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh[2]. He further submitted that the petitioner and their members are in possession of the land in question, and even though respondent No.2 is aware of the same, however, without issuing notice to them in writing, as is required under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, calling upon them to deliver possession of the land within thirty days of its service, merely served notice dated 04.10.2005 under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, on the declarant, and allegedly on the ground that the declarant failed to surrender the land, passed orders dated 11.01.2006 under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, for taking over possession of the land in question, and allegedly took over possession of the land in question on 30.01.2006. He submitted that since possession of the land in question, is allegedly taken by respondent No.2, without issuing notice to the petitioner and their members, who are in possession of the land in question, as is required under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, calling upon them to deliver possession of the land within 30 days, the alleged taking over possession of the land in question, is illegal and arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of the provisions of Section 10(5) and (6) of the ULC Act. In support of this argument that an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice, which infringes fundamental rights, is a nullity, placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Nawabkhan v. State of Gujarat[3]. He submitted that the original file, copies of which one of the members of the petitioner society obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 contains only pages 1 to 18, but the record produced by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Court, show some more pages are added. Thus, it becomes clear that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have fabricated the record so as to make it appear that possession of the land in question was already taken over. He submitted that since the petitioners and their members are in possession of the land in question, and possession of the land in question having not been taken from them, having regard to the provisions of the Repeal Act, which came into effect in the State of Andhra Pradesh, from 27.03.2008, the entire ULC proceedings shall stand abated. He thus prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, confirming the order of respondent No.2, be set aside. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counters, which are more or less on similar lines. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on their behalf reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner is neither the owner of the land in question nor they filed any declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, and therefore, they have no locus standi to file the writ petition. He submitted that the declarant filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, in respect of the land in question, on 12.08.1976. Thereafter, she obtained certificate dated 05.05.1981, under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, from respondent No.2, for sale of the land in question in favour of one Sri. Y.P. Ramaiah, as agricultural land, but in violation thereof, she sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 04.06.1981. Since the declarant sold the land in question in violation of the Section 2(o) certificate obtained by her, the sale transaction entered into by her with the petitioner, is void and invalid. He further submitted that even though the certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, was issued to the declarant, for sale of the land in question as agricultural land, however, the petitioner having purchased the same, converted the same into plots, and sold them to their members, which is violative of the Section 2(o) certificate. In support of his argument that in case of change in land use, the explanation appended to sub-section (2) of Section 6 read with Sections 2(q) and 2(o) of the ULC Act, gets attracted, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in (W.P. No. 10103/1985) in the case of Sulakshana Bai v. Government of A.P. He further contended that since by the time the petitioner purchased the land in question, Gachibowli village, where the land in question, is situated was brought within the extended plan, the petitioner ought to have obtained exemption from the Government under Section 20 of the ULC Act, and since the petitioner purchased the land in question without obtaining exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act from the Government, the purchase made by them is null and void. He further submitted that the petitioner after purchasing the land in question, before developing the land in question into plots, ought to have obtained approval of the layout from HUDA as required under Section 26 of the ULC Act, but the petitioner without obtaining approval of the layout from HUDA and without obtaining permission as required under Section 26 of the ULC Act, developed the land into plots, which is illegal and invalid. The petitioner neither filed statement under Section 15 of the ULC Act after transfer of the land from the declarant nor brought it to the notice of the competent authority enabling him to initiate action under the provisions of the ULC Act. He further submitted that the original pattadar filed statement in Form-I under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, declaring the land in question held by her in Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, describing the nature of land as “agricultural land”. As the provisions of explanation appended to sub-section (2) of Section 6 read with Section 2(q) and 2(o) of the ULC Act, are attracted, the entire land held by the declarant, including the land in question, sold by the declarant to the petitioner, was computed to the holding of the declarant, treating the land in question also as vacant land. And accordingly, treating the entire extent of land as vacant land, respondent No.2, issued draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, calling upon the declarant to file her objections, if any, within 30 days of its receipt, and in response thereto, the declarant filed petition on 21.05.2005 stating that she has no objection with regard to the surplus area determined. Thereafter, respondent No.2 having conducted an enquiry into the declaration filed by the declarant under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, and having found that the land in Sy. Nos. 122 and 125 of Gachibowli village falls within Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and that it is earmarked for agricultural purpose in the master plan. He further found that the declarant had sold away the land in question in an extent of Acs. 20.00 in Sy. Nos. 124 and 125 of Gachibowli village in favour of the petitioner on 24.07.1981, who is other than the person named in the certificate issued by the Special Officer under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, passed orders under Section 8(4) and issued final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act on 04.06.2005, confirming the draft statement issued under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act without any alterations. Thereafter, after completing the formalities under the ULC Act, notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 20.06.2005 and got published in A.P. Gazette No. 123, dated 24.06.2005. After publication of notification under Section 10(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act, was issued on 21.07.2005 and got published in A.P. Gazette No. 154, dated 22.07.2005 vesting the surplus land in the Government free from all encumbrances w.e.f. 06.08.2005. Thereafter, notification under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 04.10.2005 and got served on 10.10.2005 asking the declarant to surrender the land within 30 days from the date of its receipt. The declarant failed to surrender the land within the stipulated period. Therefore, order under Section 10(6) of the Act was issued on 11.01.2006 authorizing the Enquiry Officer in the Office of the Special Officer, ULC Hyderabad, to take over possession of the surplus land and hand it over to the MRO concerned. The Enquiry Officer having taken over possession of the surplus land on 30.01.2006 handed over possession of the same to the MRO on 30.01.2006. He further contended that aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 8(4) and issuance of final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act on 04.06.2005, confirming the draft statement issued under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act without any alterations, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Government under Section 34 of the ULC Act 28.08.2005, and the Government having called for a report, which disclosed that the petitioner sold the land in question as plots to their members even before obtaining permission for change of land use from agricultural to non-agricultural, and as such, they have lost right and title over the land, and therefore, they have no locus standi, to file revision, because no land is held by them, rejected the same by order dated 07.09.2007, and more so, when the case of the members of the petitioner, for regularization was being considered in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, and in fact, out of 115, the cases of 109 were considered and approved by the Government, for regularization in terms of the extant G.Os. He submitted that by the time the Government of Andhra Pradesh adopted Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 w.e.f. 27.03.2008, no proceedings were pending, and the writ petition in W.P. No. 19303 of 2007 filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as infructuous when it was brought to the notice of the Court that that revision filed by the petitioner was rejected, and the possession of the land in question, was already taken over by the Government, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. The learned counsel for impleaded respondent Nos. 3 and 4, submitted that they are bona fide purchasers of the plots from the petitioner society. That pursuant to declaration of the land in question as surplus, notices were issued to them calling upon them to regularize their plots, and in response thereto, their members filed applications under G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002 accompanied with requisite fee, for regularization, Hence, he prayed that the interest of the members of respondent No.3 be protected. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner society, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3-FCI Colony Plot Owners Welfare Association. In the light of the rival contentions, as noted supra, the following questions do arise for consideration in the writ petition. 1. Whether the sale of the land in question, made by the original pattedar, in favour of a person other than the one in whose name is mentioned in the Certificate obtained by the original pattedar, under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, is bad and invalid in law? 2. Whether the respondents were justified in including the land purchased and held by the petitioner society into the holding of the original pattedar for the purpose of determining the excess land holding? 3. Whether the provisions of Chapter – III of the ULC Act, much less the provisions of Section 6(2) read with Sections 2(q) and 2(o) of the ULC Act, are attracted to the land purchased and held by the petitioner society and whether the petitioner society was required to obtain exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act before purchasing the land in question? 4. Whether before taking possession of the surplus land, the respondents were under an obligation to issue notices to the petitioner society and their members under the provisions of the ULC Act, who claim to be in possession and persons interested in the land? If so, then what would happen to the orders passed by respondent No.2 under the provisions of the ULC Act? 5. Whether the impugned proceeding dated 07.09.2007 of respondent No.1, which confirmed the orders dated 04.06.2005 of respondent No.2, and the proceedings that preceded their issuance in relation to the land in question, stand abated and are liable to be set aside, in view of the Repeal Act, which came into effect in the State of Andhra Pradesh, w.e.f. 27.03.2008? In re question No.1: The contention of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that as the original pattedar obtained certificate dated 05.05.1981 under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, for sale of the land in question in favour of Sri Y.P. Ramaiah and others, the sale of the land in question, made by her in favour of the petitioner society, who is none other than the person named in the certificate, is bad and invalid, cannot be accepted. There is no doubt that the original pattedar obtained certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, for sale of the land in question in favour of, one Y.P. Ramaiah, but it is the specific case of the petitioner society that Sri Y.P. Ramaiah, in whose favour, the original pattedar obtained certificate under Section 2(o) of the ULC Act, for sale of land in question, is no other than one of the members of the petitioner society. The certificate dated 05.05.1981 issued by the Special Officer, reads that “it is valid if the lands are sold to Sarvasri Y.P. Ramaiah S/o. Kanthaiah and others”, which indicates that it can be sold to more than