THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT APPEALS No:225 & 435 OF 2009 Dated: 20.12.2010 Between: G. Sayulu and another ..Petitioners And 1. Smt. B. Lakshmi and others. .. Respondents This Court made the following THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT APPEALS No:225 & 435 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) These writ appeals are directed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 30.12.2008 in W.Ps.No.15441 of 2001 and 17954 of 2002 respectively. Since the common question of law is involved in both the writ appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is referred to as arrayed in WP No.15441 of 2001. Prologue: One Bollaboni Rama Swamy was the owner of Ac.1.37 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.65 and 66 of Uppal Bagath of Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Since the village was included in Hyderabad Urban agglomeration, the said Rama Swamy filed a declaration before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling-2nd respondent in under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’). The 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 24.1.1983 under Section 8(4) of the Act holding that Rama Swamy held an extent of 6840.76 sq. yards of land in excess of ceiling limits. Aggrieved by the same, the said Rama Swamy filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals-1st respondent. Pending the same, the said Rama Swamy died on 29.1.1999. Not being aware of his death, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 31.7.1993 remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. On such remand, the 2nd respondent issued notices in the name of Rama Swamy. On such notice, the second petitioner viz., one of the sons of Rama Swamy appeared before the 2nd respondent and informed about the death of the said Rama Swamy. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 25.2.1994, without bringing the legal representatives of the deceased declarant on record, and decided that an extent of 6840.76 sq. meters is in excess of ceiling limits. Pursuant thereto, consequential proceedings under Sections 10(1) 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) were issued. It is stated that the possession of the property was taken on 13.10.1999 and handed over to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA). Thereafter, HUDA put an auction on 10.12.2001 in which the appellants, who are petitioners in WP No.17954 of 2002 emerged as highest bidders for two plots carved out of the land, which was declared excess. Meanwhile, the legal representatives of the deceased declarant filed an appeal before the 1st respondent challenging the order dated 25.2.1994 and the said appeal was rejected on 26.5.2001 on the ground that the appeal was preferred with delay of more than six years and that the proceedings, which were already concluded, cannot be reopened at that length of time, especially when the possession of the land had already been taken over. Challenging the same, the legal representatives of the deceased declarant filed WP No.15441 of 2001. In view of the pendency of dispute in relation to the land in question in WP Nos.15441 of 2001, the HUDA cancelled the allotment of the land in question in favour of the appellants-purchasers and ordered repayment of the amount deposited by the appellants-purchasers with interest at the rate of 20% p.a. Questioning the same, the purchasers filed WP No.17954 of 2002. Contesting the claim of the appellants-purchasers, counter affidavit is filed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad in the writ petitions stating that the appeal preferred by the said Rama Swamy was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Special Officer and competent authority and on such remand, necessary notices were issued to the declarant. Pursuant to the notice, the 2nd petitioner in WPNo.15441 of 2001 appeared and taking into consideration the contentions put forth by him that there was no necessity to bring him on record, orders have been passed under Section 8(4) of the Act and consequently, the possession of the land in question was taken and handed over to HUDA so as to put the same for sale. Therefore, the petitioners in WP No.15441 of 2001 are not entitled for the benefit under G.O.No.733, dated 31.10.1988. HUDA filed a counter in the writ petitions narrating about its taking possession and handing over possession after finalization of the proceedings and occupation of the property etc. The learned single Judge by the impugned order allowed WP No.15441 of 2001 holding that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals dated 31.7.1993 is annulled as the said order is against a dead person and therefore, the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the said order including taking possession of the land in question is null and void. Further it is observed that in view of the fact that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, has been repealed, the steps taken under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act on the basis of order dated 25.2.1994, became nullity. Accordingly, the learned single Judge set aside the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act and its consequential proceedings and allowed WP No.15441 of 2001 and dismissed W.P.No.17954 of 2002. Challenging the same, the present writ appeals have been filed by the purchasers of the land in question. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that once the final orders have been passed under Section 8(4) of the Act on 25.2.1994 pursuant to the remand order passed earlier, steps taken pursuant thereto viz., taking of possession and issuance of auction notification, the cancellation of auction, are not at all warranted and the appellants are entitled to be put in possession of the property pursuant to the auction held on 10.12.2001 by completing all the other formalities and that the cancellation proceedings on the premise that the writ petition is pending in relation to the land in question, is not tenable and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. Per contra, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents contends that the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 8(4) of the Act, dated 31.7.1993 is against a dead person and therefore, the consequential proceedings taken thereafter will automatically become null and void and as a result of which, no rights can be accrued either to the official respondents or to the auction purchasers over the land in question, which was already taken possession by the official respondents under a void order and the learned single Judge had rightly taken note of the fact and therefore, the order impugned does not warrant any interference. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the official respondents contends that even if the declarant died, when the proceedings in the appeal is abated, the original order passed by the Special Officer dated 24.1.1983 under Section 8(4) of the Act and the notification etc., remained standstill and therefore, possession already taken, can be presumed to be a lawful possession under the said final order. We do not find any force in the contentions advanced by either the Counsel for the appellants or the official respondents, for the simple reason that it is nobody’s case that consequent to the order passed under section 8(4) dated 24.1.1983 by the Special Officer, further proceedings under Section 10(1) 10(3) were taken and necessary notices have been issued to the LRs of the declarant for delivery of possession. But, in the absence of such proceedings, possession was taken as contemplated under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act. It is the specific case of the 1st respondent-Commissioner as well as the writ appellants that after remand, fresh order viz., final order again was passed on 25.2.1994 and the same was followed by notification under Section 10(1) and 10(3) and issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act to the persons who are in possession for surrendering the land and taking possession of the said land. Once the remand order of the Commissioner dated 31.7.1993 attained nullity for the reason that the appellant before him was no more and died on 29.1.1991, any proceedings against a dead person consequent to that order, will automatically become null and void. In view of this legal infirmity, much credence or significance cannot be attached to the order dated 25.2.1994 and its consequential proceedings till the date of delivery of possession of the property in question. There is no dispute that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was repealed in the State of A.P. with effect from 27.3.2008 through G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (U.C.I) dated 22.4.2008 as contemplated under clause (2) of Article 252. On such repeal, all proceedings made under ULC Act pending immediately before the commencement of the Act 15 of 1999, before any Court, Tribunal or other authority gets abated as per Section 4 of the Act 15/1999. However, the provisions of Section 4 shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11,12 and 14 of the ULC Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in that behalf or by the Competent Authority. This Court in WA Nos.1763 of 2001 and batch, dated 8.10.2010, in similar circumstances held that only on finalization of the proceedings, namely, issuance of final statement under Section 9 and notification under Sections 10(1) 10(3) and further proceedings under section 10(5) and 10(6) of ULC Act are undertaken, the Competent Authority cannot claim lawful possession over the said property. Admittedly, on passing of final orders under Section 8(4) dated 24.1.1983, no notification was issued under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act nor possession was taken pursuant to the said order. But the possession was taken pursuant to the orders dated 25.2.1994 against a dead person and therefore, the same cannot be said to be a lawful possession. Once the possession taken is illegal, all the proceedings subsequent thereto will automatically become null and void and therefore, the writ appellants-auction purchasers have no right to make any claim in respect of such property, particularly when the competent authority has not challenged the order in WP No.15441 of 2001 allowing the writ petition and has accepted the quashing of the proceedings. The auction purchasers, who are claiming rights through the competent authority, cannot derive any better right than what the competent authority had under the Act. Having regard to the conclusions reached by us, we have no hesitation to hold that the orders passed by the learned single Judge, which do not suffer from any legal infirmity, need no interference and hence, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy ____________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Date: 20th December, 2010 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT APPEALS No:225 & 435 OF 2009 (Common Order delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) 20.12.2010