IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 13073 of 2002 Between: M.Ramanamma (rep by GPA K.Sureshbabu) W/o Late. Venkata RAyappa Raju, R/o.Plot No.1051, Road No.52, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P Rep by Prl.Secretary Secretariat , Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector Vishakapatnam. Vishakapatnam District. 3 The Land Acquisition Officer Vishakapatnam Port Trust Acquisition Vishakapatnam. 4 The Chairman Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Vishakapatnam. 5 The Special Officer & Competent Authority Urban Land Ceilling, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to call the records relating to and connected with the impugned proceedings of the 6th Respondent in ULC. Appel No.VSP/114/97 dt. 20-6-02 confirming the orders of the 5th Respondent in CC No.8(4)/6(1)/2198/76/A1 dt. 23-4-97 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to pass award under theprovisions of the L.A. Act for the lands belonging to the petitioner acquired by the Vishakapatnam Port Trust and pay proper and just compensation to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.B.RAM MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND CEILING The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13073 of 2002 ORDER: According to the petitioner, she was the owner and pattedar of the land to an extent of Ac.2.64 cents in Sy.No.1/1 of Kancharapalem village, Visakhapatnam Mandal and District (hereinafter referred to as the “subject land”) along with various other lands and the subject land was acquired for Visakhapatnam Port Trust. As per written communications of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, possession of the subject land was taken over by them on 31.08.1972 i.e., much earlier to the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). She contends that, in pursuance of the declaration filed by her under the provisions of the Act, she was declared as surplus landholder of the subject land and various other lands, to a total extent of Hec.21.0017 sq.meters, by way of a draft statement dated 27.11.1980 issued under Section 8 (1) of the Act, but however, ultimately, the 5th respondent-Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam, by his order dated 23.04.1997, passed final proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Act, modifying the said draft statement and declaring the petitioner as surplus landholder under the Act for the land to an extent of Hec.19.6438 sq. meters, including the subject land. Assailing the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 6th respondent-Commissioner (Appeals), Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, who by his order dated 20.06.2002, after considering the matter in detail, while determining the petitioner as surplus landholder of the subject land, remanded the matter to the file of the 5th respondent for re-determination of the land to an extent of Ac.8.00 in Sy.No.106 of Marripalem village. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 has been repealed by adopting the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 with effect from 27.03.2008. A circular dated 24.04.2008 issued by the Government, wherein certain instructions were issued in view of adoption of the Repeal Act, 1999 in the State of Andhra Pradesh, has been placed before this Court. A careful reading of clause (c) of the said circular would go to show that all pending cases in different stages i.e., under Section 8(1), 8(4) and notifications 10(1), 10(3) and notice 10(5) shall abate. Since the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 are stated to be pending at the stage of Section 8(1) of the Act, the same are abated as per the said circular instructions. Thus, the order dated 20.06.2002 of the 6th respondent and the order dated 23.04.1997 of the 5th respondent are liable to be set aside and are, therefore, set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 10.06.2009 v v