THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.Nos.226, 413, 414, 479, 490, 566, 574, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247 of 2009 And W.A.No.567 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Having regard to the common and integrated questions as they arise in all these matters, and at the request of the counsel appearing on either side, these matters were taken up together for hearing and as well for disposal. Heard the learned Advocate General, Sri P.Sriraghuram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, K.Goverdhan Reddy, N.Sreedhar Reddy, M.Ratna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and Sri M.R.S.Srinivas for Mrs.D.Geetha, learned counsel for the respondent. In this writ petition the main challenge is against the orders passed by the respondent No.1, dated 28-10-1976 purportedly under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 determining the excess land in respect of the said writ petitioners and further to hold that an extent of 10,016 square yards of the land in plot No.129/45/D as being evacuee property. Simultaneously, is the challenge against the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1570, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 19- 08-2005, where under they sought to allot the land to the respondent No.4, namely, the news paper publication known as the Andhra Prabha Publications. Briefly, the facts which almost remain uncontroversial, as claimed from both sides are that on 19 Khurdad 1339 Fasli the then H.E.H Nizam issued an Attiyat Patta in favour of Late Amoodi to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas in Sy.No.129 of Shaikpet Village. Again, another patta was issue on 25 Amardad 1340 Fasli to an extent of Ac.15.00 guntas in the same survey number. Further, the said Amoodi purchased the land an extent of Ac.3.13 guntas in Sy.No.129/30 under a Registered Sale Deed document No.2357/1964 on 11-12-1964, from the owner and pattedar Sri Shaik Abdullah. Since some claims and disputes are being raised and alleging interference with the possession and enjoyment of the property by or on behalf of Sri Narasimha Swamy Temple, on direction by the then Collector, the original Attiyat patta granted by H.E.H, Nizam stated to have been produced before the Collector under a due acknowledgment, and thereupon, the entries were carried in his favour in the revenue records consisting of regular Pahanis, Setwar and Pothibohu and he has been paying the taxes up to the year 1985. In support, a tax demand notice dated 1st Shasriwr, 1339 Fasli and receipt therefor dated 11-11-1350 Fasli was pressed into service. On 23rd Khurdad 1350 Fasli , the Jubili Hills Municipality issued a letter to the Tahsildar granting permission to Amoodi for establishment of Brick Klins. Similarly, the Tahsil Office of Serfheks granted a permission for such establishment of Brick Klins on 18-4-1350 Fasli and 25th Farwardi 1351 Fasli. Similarly, the letters issued during the period from 28th September 1961 to 11th July 1978 by the Assistant Agricultural Engineer and Assistant Director Industries and Federation of Sericulture and Government of Mysore, shows the establishment of Malbary Plantation and Hyderabad Silk Industry, which was a first one of its kind in the then Hyderabad State known as Reshambagh, Amoodi Nagar, which was stated to have been inaugurated by the then Chief Minister Dr.Neelam Sangeeva Reddy. In pursuance of an enquiry conducted by Sundaresan Committee appointed by the Government in respect of the allotment of the area under Jubili Hills municipality and the report submitted, it was admitted that some of the allotments Phodi had not been done and recorded the occupants as encroachers and for suggesting for further Phodi to be done. The plan accompanying the said report showed the Amoodi land in red colour and that said Amoodi was in possession and the existence of Malbary plantation. Subsequently, as per the correspondence of the Government at various points of time confirms the patta and possession of late Amoodi. However, having regard to certain disputes and the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C an order was passed in Misc. Case No.13/1961, dated 3-11-1961 directing the delivery of possession to late Amoodi by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In C.C.8818/1963 a criminal case was filed by one Mr.Chellappa alleging encroachment by late Amoodi, and the same was dismissed on 24- 6-1964. Later, the said proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C were referred to the civil Court under Section 146 thereof in O.P.No.26/1965, on the file of Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein a detailed enquiry was conducted allowing both sides to lead their respective evidence and ultimately as per the orders dated 29-2-1968, the title and possession of Amoodi was confirmed. However, a suit filed by one R.Bhaskar Rao in O.S.No.90/1968, on the file of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad claiming comprehensive relief of declaration of title was dismissed after the regular trial holding specifically that there exists no such Sy.No.129/45/D as claimed by said Mr.Bhaskar Rao, and there is no allotment in his favour or in favour of Taqyuddin or even Abdul Hassan, the vendor of said Bhaskar Rao. The Taqyuddin, who stated to have claimed an allotment in his favour. On further appeal in CCCA.No.122/1979, this Court as per the Judgment and Decree dated 3-8-1987 dismissed the same and confirmed that of the trial Court. The matter was carried further and got confirmed by the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal in L.P.A.No.99/1988, dated 7-6-1988. Again, an attempt was made by filing a review application in L.P.A.No.99/1988 seeking restoration, and as per the orders dated 2-11- 1995, the said review petition was allowed by restoring the appeal and the main appeal itself was withdrawn as per the orders dated 2-11-1995. In the meanwhile, the Government filed a case under the Land Grabbing Law against Amoodi for an extent of Ac.15-00 claiming under the T.S.Numbers only, where according to the owners, nothing was specifically pleaded as to the patta of Amoodi nor that of the exact corresponding numbers in the land revenue records as Sy.No.129/30, which is a private land, and yet the said land grabbing was allowed holding that Amoodi is a land grabber. A Writ Petition was filed by Amoodi in W.P.No.16573/1997 and obtained an interim orders on 24-7-1997 and again in W.P.No.1751 of 1998 on 12-2-1998 protecting his possession, and a direction against Amoodi not to alienate the property pending the proceedings. As per the report of the then Thasildar, dated 20-2-1979, it confirmed the possession of Amoodi over Ac.25-00 guntas in Sy.No.129. Subsequently, as per the correspondence with the Government, it shows as if there is a boundary dispute and an attempt was made to fix the boundary. Meanwhile, certain proceedings were issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.942 Revenue, dated 23-6-1983 and by a gazette notification dated 9-9-1981 canceling some of the alleged fake allotments in respect of the property forming part of defunct Jubili Hills municipality. As against the proceedings initiated under the land grabbing Court, the matter is carried to the Supreme Court and the same is pending in S.L.P.Nos.19243 and 19244 of 2007 wherein there is a direction to the Government not to create any 3rd parties, on 1-10-2007. And yet, according to the writ petitioners, the Government sought to allot the very same land to M/s.Andhra Prabha Publications and delivered the possession. Considering these and other checkered events, the learned Single Judge by taking into account the respective pleadings and the submissions made across the Bar, categorized these batch of cases as one being at the instance of the original owners, second by the subsequent purchasers. The factum is that the original owners filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the 1976 Act, as per the prescribed Form-I in C.C.No.E1/10320/76. Accordingly, in pursuance thereof, a draft statement was prepared under Section 8 (1) and a notice was issued under Section 8 (3) of the said Act on 29-3-1993 determining the extent of 9,081 square meters as excess land in TS.No.19/2, Block-K, Ward No.12, Plot No.129/45/D situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The final order purportedly under Section 8 (4) of the Act was passed in 27-6-2000 determining an extent of 241.14 square meters as excess land in respect of each of the five declarants, namely, the land owners. As against the same, the land owners and as well the District Collector, Hyderabad filed the appeals before the appellate authority viz., the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad and the same was disposed of on 16-1-2006 by allowing and remanding the same back to the primary authority, the Special Officer for fresh enquiry, after giving notice and proper opportunity to the declarants. Again after a contest, an order was passed by the primary authority on 28-10-2006, wherein it was held that the property was allotted to one Sri Mohd. Taquiddin, as per the memo dated 16- 02-1967, which can be culled out from out of the contents of the registered documents of sale, which was produced by the owners themselves in the year 1962 and the said Taquiuddin, who was Ex-Secretary to Government was declared as an evacuee, and therefore, the said property has become an evacuee property as per the declaration by way of notification No.5 dated 15-9-1949. Further, taking note of a contention in the written statements made by the Special Government Pleader, the earlier proceeding dated 5-12- 2001 of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, certifying the land to an extent of Ac.3-21 guntas purchased by the land owners as not being an evacuee property, was withdrawn by the subsequent proceedings dated 12- 07-2004. Considering the subsequent development in regard to the repeal of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling law as per the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, as per the resolution of the State Legislature dated 27-3-2008, Section 3 (1) of the said Act contemplates that the repeal of the principal Act shall not effect inter alia the vesting of the vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section (10), the possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in that behalf or the competent authority. The learned Single Judge took note of the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader, that the action under Section 10 (6) of the Act was not initiated and possession was not taken, and therefore, it was taken as an admission. Therefore admittedly, and there being no rebuttal even at this stage, the proceedings under the said Act accordingly become abated, and therefore, the impugned orders dated 28-10-2006 has no effect in law. Among the array of the writ petitioners, it consist Smt.Azizia Bee, wife of late Shaik Ahmed Bin Mohammed Amoodi and her sons and daughters in W.P.No.14980/2008. Similarly, the purchasers of the land from Amoodi filed a Writ in W.P.No.7315/2006. Claiming an interest over an extent of 10,016 sq yards forming part of Ac.3.31 guntas, which is being the subject matter of the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, in a second category of writ petitions, as mentioned by the learned Single Judge in WP.Nos.18353/2006, 6623/2008, 6705/2008, 3396/2008 and 7089/2008, the challenge is against the G.O.Ms.No.1570, dated 19-08-2005 allotting the property in favour of said Andhra Prabha Publications. Among the writ petitioners in the said category, there is a challenge by the legal heirs of late Amoodi and his subsequent purchasers of the land, which is a subject matter of L.G.C.No.118/1989 and a challenge to the allotment to Andhra Prabha Publications. The main attack on behalf of this, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge is that, while bona fide disputes pertains to the respective claims over the lands are pending, the Government ought not to have issued the impugned G.O, on the erroneous report of the District Collector, Hyderabad that the land admeasuring 4,046 square meters in Sy.No.403 part in T.S.No.19/p, Block-K, Ward No.12, Road No.12, Banjara Hills as Government land, and the same is a vacant on the ground and free from litigation. Similarly, amongst the Writs filed in this batch, the Writ in W.P.No.7315/2006 is seeking for the relief for regularization of their possession under G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20-10-1995, which was contested by the Government on the ground that the petitioners therein do not fulfill the required conditions. As per the G.O.Ms.No.1570, dated 19-08-2005, it reveals that on representation made by the Executive Director of Andhra Prabha Publications seeking for allotment of government land on par with other newspapers like Hindu, Andhra Jyothi, Vaartha etc., the land which is called as Amoodi land to an extent of 8,000 square meters on Road No.12, Banjara Hills, and stating that an extent of 4046 square meters of Government land in Sy.No.403 part in TS.No.19/p, Block-K, Ward No.12 at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet village and Mandal is a vacant and free from litigation, and therefore, being recommended by the Collector, which was forwarded through the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, who in turn recommending for selling the land at Rs.25,000/- per square yard, and therefore, the Government sought to alienate the said land to an extent of 8000 square meters for a concessional rate of Rs.8,000/- per square yard. The succinct aspect of the title as claimed, are that, an extent of 10,616 square yards in Plot No.129/45-D is claimed as having succeeded to the estate of Mercy Sona Bai Chellappa, who purchased the property under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.1020/1962 dated 17-07-1962, and tracing the title to Sri Mohd. Taquiuddin, whose right on an extent of Ac.3-21 guntas includes 10,616 square yards, being confirmed by the State Government vide Memo No.3933/Q2/64-17, dated 06-12-1967, on the recommendation of the District Collector, Hyderabad. Therefore, as per the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, it was taken that all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant Mercy Sona Bai Chellappa are eligible to get equal share in the property forming part of Ac.3.21 guntas (14,289 square meters), out of which 8866.61 square meters were purchased by late Mercy Sona Bai Chellappa and out of the balance land, 2599 square meters is vested in the Government. And therefore, each of the 5 legal heirs would be entitled to 241.14 square meters of which the retainable area is 10000 square meters. Hence, 241.14 square meters from each of the individuals is surplus. Thus, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the said excess as found initially by the primary authority and the remand orders of the appellate authority in appeal, at the instance of both the declarants as well the Government, and after the remand, the proceedings issued are being impugned. Therefore, by culling out the admitted situation, it was taken by the learned Single Judge that as per the report of the District Collector, an extent of 4,046 square meters was free from litigation. However, there is no attempt on the part of the District Collector to identify the said extent of 4,046 square meters in Sy.No.403 with specific reference to the boundaries. It was observed that when the land admeasuring 10,616 square meters was subject matter of dispute under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976, which is well within the knowledge of the District Collector, and who cannot plead ignorance being a party to the proceedings, and therefore, it was presumed that a District Collector would not have included an extent of 4046 square meters neither there is no justification for such inclusion. Observing that there was no attempt on the part of the appellants and especially the counsel representing the government to answer the question whether the land claimed by the land owners and successors interest forms part of 4046 square meters. Hence, by adding the confusion the government included further extent of 3954 square meters to the extent of 4046 square meters and allotted the same to the Andhra Prabha Publications. Even accepting, it was held that as per the version of the Collector’s statement that 4046 square meters is free from litigation, it implies that the balance extent of 3094 square meters is subject matter of litigation. Hence, the government could not have included the said extent of 3094 square meters in an extent of 8000 square meters, over and above 4046 square meters, which alone is free from litigation, even as per the District Collector. Therefore, the District Collector did not apply the mind in the whole affair nor there is any justification or correctness in the statement of fact that the land is free from litigation, especially, when the land owners are making their bona fide claim over 10,616 square meters, and the very same land is being allotted to the Andhra Prabha Publications, which is neither vested nor available as such for being allotted to a 3rd party. Further, it was observed that if really the said land is to be excluded from the purview of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Government could not have exercised any such right, as long as these disputes are settled finally, and rejected the contention on behalf of the appellants that even if there is a dispute, the Government is not precluded from making allotment. Further, on the face of the finding of the Special Officer, no doubt, for the first time in the orders dated 28-10-2006, the land was held to be an evacuee property and therefore either way they could not have allotted. Though, the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976 stood abated in view of the repealing Act of 1999, it cannot be said that the claim of land owner speculative since their title is traced to a registered document of the year 1967 by Md.Taquiddin, whose title by the proceedings of the government dated 6-12-1967, though, of course refrained from making any expression on the final opinion on the title of the land owners. But, however it reveals that there exists a bona fide and genuine disputed claim pending. Therefore, as long as there is no finality in the process of adjudication by proper level, there could have been any allotment. Coming to the proceedings of the land grabbing Court and referring to the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.90/1968, on the file of the Court of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing the suit filed by one R.Bhaskar Rao against the said Amoodi and confirmed by the Judgments in CCCA.No.122 of 1979 and LPA.No.99 of 1988 recognizing late Amoodi as the title holder. However, in view of the proceedings under the land grabbing in LGC.118 of 1980 declaring Amoodi as land grabber and the subsequent writ petition filed in WP.1751 of 1998, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6-2-2004 and the claim of the authorities that possession of 9,906 square meters of land is being taken and fencing was laid, and subsequently, the said writ petition was restored on 4-3-2005 and the impugned proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.1570 was issued on 19-08-2005. However, the main writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 25-5-2007 and the appeals in SLP.Nos.19243 and 19244 of 2007 are pending on the file of the Supreme Court with an interim directions against the State Government not to create any third party interest. Thus, taking into account these dates, the learned Single Judge noted that the impugned G.O.Ms.1570, dated 19-8-2005 was issued at a time when the Writ in W.P.1715 of 1998 as against the land grabbing proceedings was pending, and therefore, the land which is the subject matter of the LGC proceedings, could not have been allotted. Even otherwise, in respect of the said land under the land grabbing proceedings, there is a bona fide dispute pending between the petitioners and the government, apart from the fact that the subsisting interim orders of the Supreme Court and issuance of the impugned G.O running contra to each other. As regards the claim of the purchasers of the plot under various registered sale deeds during the year 1967-68 for consideration, it was held that their claim is always is subject to the proceedings under the land grabbing proceedings, which is pending before the Supreme Court, and if such land as claimed is included in the allotment of the land to the Andhra Prabha Publications stand on the same footing as that of the other writ petitioners viz., owners and the said extent deserves to be excluded. Further, in respect of the writ petition in WP.6668 of 2006 where the claim was in regard to the representation dated 21-9-2004 claiming for allotment, it was noted that the said writ petition does not hold any merit and liable for dismiss for non-prosecution, without going into the merits of the case, having regard to the change in the counsel and non-appearance in spite of the attempt to send the notices to them, which was returned with an endorsement party has left. Thus, ultimately, the learned Single judge held that the land is not liable for allotment to 3rd party including the Andhra Prabha Publications unless and until it is held by the competent forum that these lands belong to and vested in the state government. In the absence of the specific version from the government as to the identity, which can be made by exercise of conducting a survey by the competent authority. In the event of any such survey and finding that the land which is allotted to Andhra Prabha Publications is forming part of the land claimed by them, it needs to be excluded, and after such exclusion, if there exists any remaining extent from out of the 8000 square meters, the State Government shall be free to allot such remaining land to the Andhra Prabha Publications. Accordingly, a direction was given to the District Collector, Hyderabad to cause a survey in the presence of the representatives of the parties, and in the event of any grievance by any of the parties there are left free to avail the remedies available under the law with a reiteration that the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling laws have abated, all the writ petitions were allowed except WP.6668 of 2008 as observed. Hence, these appeals. The grounds on which the State seeks to assail the orders of the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.226 of 2009 primarily centers around the contention that there is totally erroneous approach by the learned Single Judge since the property allotted to the Andhra Prabha Publication was that of the proceedings against Amoodi, whose appeal is pending before the Supreme Court, and therefore, there is nothing to show that the land of the writ petitioners is being taken under the guise of allotting the land of Amoodi. Further, the proceedings would amply show that the land is totally different and not as claimed by the writ petitioner, but only that of Amoodi. It was further pleaded that the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings do not either way confer or abrogate the title nor would confirm on any person. Further, the plot which has been allotted to Andhra Prabha Publication was taken over through the process of execution of the decree of the Special Court under the land grabbing as per Rule 5 of the Rules framed under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, and there is absolutely no justification to say that the land claimed by the writ petitioners there exists any bona fide claim or dispute. Further, it was clarified that the allotment as made to the Andhra Prabha Publication is subject to the outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court and that the land was duly taken physical delivery thereof as per the procedure contemplated under the aforesaid Rule 5. Therefore, the writ petitioners have absolutely no right, much less, enforceable. There is no pendency of any litigation in respect of the land allotted. Similar are the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants in W.A.No.413 of 2009 viz., the allottee publication contending that the title of the writ petitioners was never established in any