HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.M.P.No.25698 of 2010 And WRIT PETITION No.17221 of 2010 Dated:17.09.2010 Between: Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary. …..Petitioner And The Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., Revenue Department (Endowments) & others. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.M.P.No.25698 of 2010 And WRIT PETITION No.17221 of 2010 COMMON ORDER : In terms of the amended prayer, in this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings of the Special Officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, dated 4th August 2005, issued in Proceedings No.H1/4933/76 and H1/177/77, issued under Section 8(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the further orders of the appellate authority, dated 24th January 2007, passed in ULC Appeal No.Hyd.102/2006 and for other consequential prayers with regard to the subject lands covered by the aforesaid proceedings. The petitioner, which claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, has filed this writ petition through its Secretary, who appeared in person at first instance and argued the matter on 26.07.2010 and 2nd of August 2010. When this Court has questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to question the impugned proceedings, by seeking adjournment, a separate application is filed, which is numbered as W.P.M.P.No.25698 of 2010, seeking to grant leave to the petitioner to file the writ petition against the orders passed by respondent No.6 in ULC Proceedings No.H1/4933/76 and H1/177/77, dated 04.08.2005, as confirmed by the appellate authority in ULC Appeal No.Hyd.102/2006, dated 24th January 2007. After hearing the party-in- person at first instance, the learned Counsel Sri N.Ashok Kumar has filed his appearance for the petitioner and I have heard the learned counsel also. The Gurukul Ghatkesar is a Trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. It owned vast extents of land in Survey Nos.3, 5/2 to 5/23 of Izzatnagar village, and Survey Nos.11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 43 to 48, 58, 59, 61, 64 and 65 of Khanamet village in Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. The said Trust, represented by its President, has filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, on 9th September 1976, in respect of the above said properties, held by the Trust and ultimately, the Special Officer and competent authority passed final orders, dated 4th August 2005, under Section 8(4) of the Act, declaring that the Trust owned an extent of 23,16,839.02 square metres of surplus land and accordingly, further steps were taken under Section 10 of the Act. The said Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, represented by its Fit Person, has questioned the final orders passed under Section 8(4) of the Act and further notifications issued under Section 10(1) of the Act, dated 16.02.2006, and notice, dated 09.03.2006, issued under Section 10(5) of the Act before the Commissioner, who is appellate authority under Section 33 of the Act, vide ULC Appeal No.Hyd.102/2006. The said appeal was dismissed by orders, dated 24th January 2007. At the stage of admission of the writ petition, the learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing for respondents, has brought to the notice of this Court that the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, through its Fit Person, has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16658 of 2009, questioning the final orders of the Special Officer, as confirmed by the appellate authority by order, dated 24th January 2007, and the same is pending consideration. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner that as per the recitals of the Trust deed, it is open for the Trust to entrust its management to the petitioner-Society, as such, the petitioner also can question the final orders passed by the Urban Land Ceiling authorities. In the affidavit filed in support of W.P.M.P.No.25698 of 2010, in which, the petitioner is seeking leave to prefer the writ petition to question the orders, dated 04.08.2005, and the orders of the appellate authority, dated 24.01.2007, it is stated that the Fit Person of the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust has not pursued the case before respondents 6 and 7 properly, and such Fit Person may not prosecute the case properly before this Court. It is also stated that a resolution was passed on 29.05.2010 by the Trustees of the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, handing over the management of the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, its institutions and properties, to the petitioner-Society, as per the Trust Deed of the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust. If the management is handed over with regard to the properties of the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, the petitioner as well can get impleaded in the writ petition, which is already filed by the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust itself in W.P.No.16658 of 2009, but when the writ petition filed by such declarant is pending, the petitioner, claiming rights under the Trust Deed, as an interested person, cannot maintain the second writ petition, questioning the very same orders. During the course of arguments, it is fairly submitted by Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, who claims to be the Secretary of the petitioner-Society, and also by the learned counsel, who filed his appearance during the course of hearing, Sri N.Ashok Kumar, that the matter is not filed by way of public interest litigation, as such, when the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust is the owner of properties which are subject matter of Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, and when such declarant has already filed a writ petition and the same is pending consideration, on the very same subject, no other petition can be maintained. The petitioner also not even disclosed the fact of filing the earlier writ petition by the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, which is pending before this Court, and the same is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. Thereafter, an application is filed, seeking leave to prefer writ petition to question the said orders. As much as this writ petition is filed, questioning the orders passed by the Special Officer and competent authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority in the appeal filed under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and when the writ petition already filed by the original declarant is pending consideration, this Court is of the view that a second writ petition cannot be maintained, questioning the very same orders. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant leave to the petitioner, as prayed for in W.P.M.P.No.25698 of 2010. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P.M.P.No.25698 of 2010 is dismissed. Consequently, W.P.No.17221 of 2010 also stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th September 2010. ajr