HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.A. No. 810 of 2004 DATED: 23.06.2011 Between: D. Narasimha Raju and two others .. Appellants And Competent Authority and Special Officer and two others .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government for Revenue for the respondents. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.03.2004 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17484 of 1993 whereby the writ petition was dismissed for reasons which are not wholly clear. In the judgment under appeal, it is recorded that the writ petition having been filed in 1993 for implementation of orders dated 23.12.1988 of the appellate authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity “the Act”), the same is belated. The learned Single Judge appears to have misconstrued the writ petition as one challenging the order of the appellate authority. It is not so. At another place in the order, it is recorded that the petitioners’ grievance is that the respondents are trying to interfere with their possession, but there was no material to ascertain such interference, and therefore, no specific direction to the respondents not to interfere, is warranted. In conclusion, however, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners, who are aggrieved thereby, have filed this Writ Appeal. A chronology of relevant facts is apposite. a) The petitioners are owners of appurtenant vacant land of an extent of Ac.3.00 cents and Ac.0.79 cents in Sy.No.149/5A/1 and 151/2 respectively of Chinnamushirivada village, classified as agricultural lands. Since there are mango trees in all the properties, they filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Act clearly specifying that these lands are outside the purview of the Act since they are agricultural lands. They also stated in the declaration that if any excess land of the petitioners- declarants is required to be surrendered, they agree to surrender land out of an extent of 6232 sq. mtr. in T.S. No.51 of Pedavalleru village. Neither the draft statement under Section 8 (3) nor further proceedings or orders under Section 10(3) were not communicated to the petitioners. No orders under Section 8(4) and 9(1) of the Act were at all passed by the 1st respondent. Without passing any orders under Section 8(4) and 9(1) of the Act, the 1st respondent-competent authority issued notices dated 21.04.1980 under Sections 10(5) and 11(8) of the Act, calling upon the petitioners herein to deliver possession of the agricultural lands mentioned supra. b) Against the order of the competent authority (following the unique procedure stated above), the petitioners filed W.P. No. 2096 of 1980 challenging the assessment of surplus lands. By the order dated 12.10.1981, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority under the Act. Thereupon, the petitioners filed an appeal to the 2nd respondent- appellate authority under the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. The petitioners obtained stay of dispossession both in the writ petition as well as before the appellate authority. c) By a memo dated 13.09.1986, the State Government, responding to a query by the petitioners, informed them that no orders under Sections 8(4) and 9(1) of the Act were passed by the competent authority. d) The 2nd respondent-appellate authority by CLr & ULC’s Proceedings Nos.AUC1/8214/81, No.AUC1/8215/81 and AUC1/8216/81, dated 23.12.1988, concluded that the Special Officer and Competent Authority did not follow the mandatory provisions of passing orders under Section 8(4). e) Consequent on the orders of the appellate authority, the entirety of the proceedings issued by the competent authority directing taking possession of the petitioners’ property, was rendered non-est and inoperable. The petitioner continue in possession of the property. Since the respondents apparently endeavoured to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners on the wrong assumption that the order of the competent authority was still operative, the appellants were constrained to file the writ petition. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. To the extent relevant to the material for the purposes of this appeal, suffice it to record that the content of the appellate order dated 23.12.1988 of the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings, is admitted. It is however, pleaded that the order of the appellate authority was not traced in the office of the1st respondent- Competent Authority and Special Officer. It is further stated that the appellate authority was addressed on 20.09.1994 seeking a copy of the appellate order. The counter clearly admits that from a perusal of the record, no orders were received from the appellate authority and therefore, statutory formalities under the provisions of the Act were processed by the Competent Authority. It is also pleaded in the counter that pursuant to the order of the competent authority, after issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, the Special Officer and Competent Authority has completed all statutory formalities in allotting the land to Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority as per Section 23 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances adverted to above, it is clear that consequent on the order dated 23.12.1988 of the 2nd respondent- appellate authority, the order of the Competent Authority, including the order under Section 8(4) of the Act stood invalidated. The petitioners have in view of the interim orders obtained in the earlier writ petition filed by them (W.P. No.2096 of 1980) and the interim orders passed by the appellate authority, continue to be in possession of the schedule property. After the order of the appellate authority dated 23.12.1988 (declaring the subsequent action taken by the competent authority under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act as illegal, quashing the same and remanding the matter to the Special Officer to proceed denovo after affording an opportunity to the petitioners/appellants herein), no further proceedings under the provisions of the Act were issued; since admittedly the competent authority did not have knowledge of the orders of the appellate authority. Since the possession of the property was not acquired by the State under the provisions of the Act, on the repeal of the Act, no further proceedings under the provisions of the Act may legitimately be pursued now. The allotment of these lands to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority as pleaded in the counter affidavit, is an action of no legal consequence and is not based on lawful authority. On the above analysis and for the foregoing reasons, the order under appeal requires to be interfered with and is accordingly set aside. It is hereby declared that the respondents-herein shall not be entitled to proceed against the lands of the petitioners on any assumption of authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 23.06.2011 ___________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J bcj