IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17465 of 2004 Between: 1. M. Srinivas Reddy, S/o M. Narasimha Reddy, aged about 57 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o 18-8-491, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. 2. Smt Rajamani Devi, W/o M. Narasimha Reddy, aged about 82 years, Occ: Household, R/o Manju Sankar Apartments, Block F, Ground Floor, Behind Railway Quarters, Moulali, Prashantinagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. 3. Karunivathi, D/o M. Narasimha Reddy, aged about 50 years, Presently residing at Manju Sankar Apartments, Block F, Ground Floor, Behind Railway Quarters, Moulali, Prashanthinagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. 4. M. Narahari Reddy, S/o M. Narasimha Reddy, aged about 59 years, Occ: Government Servant, R/o Manju Sankar Apartments, Block F, Ground Floor, Behind Railway Quarters, Moulali, Prashanthinagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERs AND 1. Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. 2. The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, at Hyderabad. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. .....RESPONDENTs 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 a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the order dt. 2.8.2004 in Commissioner Appeal’s Proc.No.HYD/39/2004 on the file of the first respondent and the order dt 11.5.1994 in CC Nos. J/70 to 73, 77/87 on the file of the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction; Award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue. The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the counsel on either side and with their consent the writ petition itself is disposed of at the stage of admission. I see no infirmity in the order dated 2.8.2004 passed by the 1st respondent-Commissioner in the appeal filed by the petitioners observing that in the light of the orders passed by the Government under Section 34 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, directions were issued to revise Section 8 (4) orders of the said Act, dated 11.5.1994. In view of the same, no orders can be passed since the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, was directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders as directed by the Government in the memo dated 17.6.2004. The petitioners, if aggrieved, have to challenge the order passed by the Government in memo dated 17.6.2004. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the memo dated 17.6.2004 in accordance with law. No costs. 29.9.2004 CVM To, 1. Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. 2. The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, at Hyderabad. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. 4. 2 CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 5. 2 CD copies.