IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 20970 of 2008 Between: 1.Sri Theppala Madhava Rao (Male, Hindu) S/o. Late Appala Swamy R/o. D.No.38-32-56, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 2.Smt. Bammidi Padmavathi (Female, Hindu) W/o. B.A. Kondala Rao R/o. D.No.38-32-65, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 3.Sri. Geesala Venkata Ramana (Male, Hindu) S/o. Late Appla Raju R/o. D.No.38-32-72, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 4.Smt. Gonnabathula Manikyamma (Female, Hindu) W/o. Late Satya Rao R/o. D.No.38-32-59, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 5.Smt. Gonnabathula Satya Vani (Female, Hindu) W/o. China Venkata Rao R/o. D.No.38-32-1/1, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 6.Smt. Nasima Jeelani (Female, Muslim) W/o. Md. AK. Jeelani R/o. D.No.38-32-60, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 7.Sri. S.A. Gaffor (Male, Muslim) S/o. Biram Sahib R/o. D.No.38-32-82, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 8.Smt. Vanjarapu Appala Narsamma (Female, Hindu) W/o. Suryanarayana, R/o. D.No.38-32-57, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 9.Smt. Nammi Appala Narsamma (Female, Hindu) W/o. Narsinga Rao R/o. D.No.38-32-77, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 10.Sri. Kadagana Suryanarayana (Male, Hindu) S/o. Late Sirumamma R/o. D.No.38-32-72/1, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 11.Sri. Pudi Dasu Krishna (Male, Hindu) S/o. Late Pudi Soma Babu R/o. D.No.38-32-53, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 12.Smt. Mandal Pydi Thallamma (Female, Hindu) W/o. Late Appala Swamy R/o. D.No.38-32-77/1, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 13.Sri. Abdul Rashid (Male, Muslim) S/o. A. Azeej R/o. D.No.38-32-82, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 14.Sri. M.A. Johalal (Male, Muslim) S/o. Late Abdul Subhan R/o. D.No.38-32-77/1/1, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 15.Sri.Badipeta Sanyasi Satya Venkata Ganesh Rao (Male, Hindu) S/o. B. Chandra Rao, R/o. D.No.38-32-59/1, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 16.Sri. Samuel Raja Rao (Male, Christian) S/o. Late Solman Raju R/o. D.No.38-32-82, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 17.Smt. Geesala Seeta Ratnam (Female, Hindu) W/o. G.V. Ramana R/o. D.No.38-32-77/2, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 18.Smt. Abida Rahimani (Female, Muslim) W/o. Late Syed Ibrahim R/o. D.No.38-32-78, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 19.Smt. B. Aruna Kumari (Female, Hindu) W/o. Sree Ram Murthy R/o. D.No.38-32-73, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 20.Sri.Satturi Simhachalam (Male, Hindu) W/o. Late Appa Rao R/o. D.No.38-32-81, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 21.M/s. Visha Vani A Regtrd.Society,Hyd.,Reptd.by its Exe. Dir.Mr.P.Salva Raju, R/o. D.No.38-32-75, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 22.Sri. D.V.V. Satyanarayana (Hindu) S/o. Late D. Rama Chandra Rao R/o. D.No.38-32-77/1, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 23.Sri. Bondi Ramaiah (Male, Hindu) W/o. Late Latchanna R/o. D.No.38-32-55, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 24.Sri. MD. Mohiddin (Male, Muslim) S/o. Shaik Madina R/o. D.No.38-32-83/2, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 25.Ashrifunnisa Begum (Male, Muslim) D/o. Shaik Madina R/o. D.No.38-32-83/1, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. 26.Sri. M. Narayana Rao (Male, Hindu) S/o. M. Kondayya R/o. D.No.38-32-83/2, Marripalem, Ward No.40, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Special Officer Urban Land Ceiling Authority Visakhapatnam. 2 The Tahsildar Visakhapatnam. Urban, Visakhapatnam. 3 The District Collector 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 will be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned notices issued by the 1st Respondent in R.C.No.130/08, dt.04-07-2008 & dt.05-07-2008 directing the petitioners to regularize their construction on payment of market value in Sy.Nos.90/2, 90/2B, 90/2 (P), 90/1A, & K(P) 90/2A(P), 90/1C, 99/5A, more clearly mentioned in annexure "A", of Marripalem, Visakhapatnam and the Respondent attempting to disposes the petitioners from their respective houses from dt.20- 09-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative Article 300- A of the constitution of India and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the impugned notices and direct the Respondents not to disposes them from their respective properties in pursuance of the impugned notices or in any other manner. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.20970 of 2008 Order: This Writ petition is ﬁled challenging the impugned notices issued by the ﬁrst respondent, namely, the Special Oﬃcer, Urban Land Ceiling Authority, Visakhapatnam, directing the petitioners to ﬁle applications under G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.6.2008, for regularization of the unauthorized constructions made by them in the surplus urban land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request, the writ petition is taken up for ﬁnal disposal at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in their possession is not surplus land and, therefore, there is no need for them to ﬁle applications seeking regularization of their possession under G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.06.2008. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submits that the impugned notices are issued only to create awareness in persons who are in possession of the surplus lands and there is no compulsion for the petitioners to avail the beneﬁt of the said Government Order. However, on instructions, she submits that the respondents are withdrawing the impugned notices issued to the petitioners. In view of the above, no further orders are necessary to be passed in this writ petition. It is accordingly closed. However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the respondents from initiating action against those persons who are found to be in possession of surplus land in accordance with law. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:29.09.2008 VGB