THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.20944 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioners are sons of late Smt.Qutubunnisa Begum. She held lands in different survey numbers of Habsiguda Revenue Village, which is part of Hyderabad Urban agglomeration. As required under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (for short the Act’), 1976, she filed a declaration on 14-09-1976, under Section 6 of the Act, before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, the 2nd respondent herein, furnishing the particulars of the properties, held by her. No steps were taken on the declaration for quite some time. It was only on 13-09-1985, that a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act was issued, indicating that she holds an extent of 1,75,561.28 sq.mts., in excess of ceiling limits. Objections were filed on 04-12-1985. She died on 23-07-1986. It was only on 24-02-1994, that the 2nd respondent passed an order under Section 8(4) of the Act, stating that the declarant holds an extent of 96,326.98 sq.mts., in excess of ceiling limits. The copy of the order was served upon her counsel. An appeal was preferred before the 1st respondent by the petitioners herein. One of the grounds urged by them was that the orders under Section 8(4) of the Act were passed against a dead person, and that the same is inoperative in law. The Appellate Authority granted an order of stay on 10-04-1994. The appeal, however, was dismissed on 30-08-2005. Hence this writ petition. It is urged that the Act is expropriatory in its nature, and before the property of an individual is taken away, every step prescribed thereunder must be strictly followed. According to the petitioners, orders under Section 8(4) of the Act were passed, eight years after the declarant died, without any notice to the legal representatives. It is also their case that the 1st respondent did not take into account the serious lapses committed by the 2nd respondent. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. The fact that the declarant died, long before the order under Section 8(4) was passed is not denied. It is also stated that one of the sons of the petitioner, i.e. the 1st petitioner was aware of the proceedings, and that he participated at various stages. The possession of the land was said to have been taken on 19-07-2000, on the basis of the proceedings dated 21-01-2000 under Section 10(6) of the Act. Sri P. Badri Premnath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings suffer from a serious infirmity, inasmuch as they were initiated against a dead person. He contends that the plea of the respondents that the possession was taken, cannot be sustained, inasmuch as an order of stay granted by the Appellate Authority, the 1st respondent, on 10-04-1994, was still in force, till the appeal was dismissed, and soon thereafter, this Court passed interim orders. Learned Government Pleader for Assignments, on the other hand, submits that the proceedings, vis-à-vis, the land have assumed finality, and they cannot be reopened at this stage. It is also urged that the petitioners themselves ought to have come on record, soon after the death of their mother, and they cannot raise technical pleas, vis-à-vis the land, that has already vested with the Government, by operation of law. In the course of narration itself, certain important dates were mentioned. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was filed on 14-09-1976, and a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act was prepared on 13-09-1985. On receipt of the same, the declarant, i.e. the mother of the petitioners, filed objections on 04-12-1985. Had the 2nd respondent passed order under Section 8(4) of the Act, soon after receiving the objections filed by the declarant, on 04-12-1985, no complications would have arisen. The matter was kept in cold storage for about nine years thereafter. The declarant died on 23-07-1986. Orders under Section 8(4) were passed on 24-02-1994. The fact that the 2nd respondent was also aware of the death of the declarant, and still did not take the steps of brining the legal representatives of the deceased on record, is evident from the following paragraph of the order, passed under Section 8(4). It reads as under: “…The declarant failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing. Again notice was issued to the Advocate Sri Badri Premnath to bring the Legal Representatives on record, while fixing date on 29-1-1994. On the said date none present. Hence, the case is processed on material available on record”. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents did not dispute the fact that the declarant died long before the order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed. The only explanation offered by them is that, the details of the legal heirs of the declarant could not be collected by them, as their whereabouts were not known to them. It hardly needs any mention that an order passed against a dead person is void ab initio, and does not lead to any legal consequences. The principle operates with a greater vigor, when the proceedings are under an expropriatory legislation, like the Act. Therefore, the order dated 24-02- 1994 is void ab initio, and untenable in law. The Appellate Authority made an attempt to sustain an ex facie void order, by making reference to certain events, which do not have any bearing. The respondents made an attempt to sustain their action, vis-à-vis the land, by stating that the possession thereof was taken in the year 2000. It is a matter of record that the 1st respondent granted stay, way back on 10-04-1994. It operated till the dismissal of the appeal, on 30-08-2005. If what is stated in the counter-affidavit is true, it amounts to gross illegality, impropriety and insubordination on the part of the concerned officials. They can be said to have flouted the orders of the Appellate Authority, with impunity. This Court does not countenance such blatant acts of insubordination. The possibility for this Court in remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration does not exist, on account of the fact that the Act has been repealed, in its entirety. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 30-08-2005, passed by the 1st respondent under Section 8(4) of the Act is set aside, and as a consequence, the land held by Smt. Qutubunnisa Begum, the mother of the petitioners, in respect of which, declaration under Section 6 of the Act, before the 2nd respondent, was filed, cannot be treated as excess, or surplus. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25-02-2010. KO