IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:13362 of 2002 Between: 1 Smt Uma Devi Jain, W/o Heerala Jain, r/o H.No.22-2-88, Komatwadi, Hyderabad. 2 Smt Shobana Jain, W/o Heerala Jain, r/o H.No.22-2-88, Komatwadi, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner (Appeals), Urban Land Ceilings, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad. 4 TheDistrict Collector, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad. 5 The Commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Saroornagar, R.R.District. 6 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, R.R.District. 7 The Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.C.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. M.S.RAMACHANDER RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 & 7: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 10.06.2002 of respondent No.3 and declare that the property bearing premises No.5-40/P (New), 4-17(1) (old), over an area admeasuring 548 sq.yards equivalent to 458 sq.meters in plot No.8 in Survey No.176 of Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District is outside the purview of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) as per G.O.Ms.No.733, Revenue, U.C.II Department, dated 31.10.1988. The petitioners claim that their vendors purchased the above-mentioned property under registered sale deed No.2469/66/E, dated 21.09.1966 and that in 1997, the petitioners purchased the said property along with a house from the vendees of the original owner. The petitioners approached respondent No.3 with an application on 29.11.2001 to grant no objection certiﬁcate under the provisions of the Act to enable them to obtain a loan by mortgaging the property. While considering the said application, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings wherein it is mentioned that one Mr. C.Somanath Singh ﬁled a declaration under the provisions of the Act showing the above mentioned property as surplus land along with other properties, an order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed and possession was taken under Section 10(6) of the Act. On this premise, respondent No.3 declined to grant no objection certificate to the petitioners. At the hearing, Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners questioned the validity of the impugned proceedings on various grounds including the ground that the very declaration made by Sri C.Somanath Singh, acceptance of such declaration and passing of order under Section 8(4) of the Act were wholly illegal. He further stated that as the said Somanath Singh had nothing to do with the property in question, the said declaration and the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act do not bind the petitioners. For the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition, it is not necessary to deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is admitted that the purpose of ﬁling an application for grant of no objection certiﬁcate was to obtain loan and grant of no objection certiﬁcate was a pre- requisite according to the executive instructions issued by the competent authority in purported exercise of their powers under the provisions of the Act. Since the very Act itself was repealed with the passing of resolution by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature on 27.03.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.603, dated 22.04.2008 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh while adopting Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the very purpose for which the application ﬁled by the petitioners has become redundant and the requirement of no objection certiﬁcate does not exist with the repeal of the Act. In this view of the matter, this Court need not adjudicate the claim of the petitioners regarding their rights over the property in question. As and when their possession is threatened, they shall be free to avail their remedies available in law. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, interim order, dated 24.07.2002 is vacated and WPMP.No.16613 of 2002 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni