IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18340 of 2001 Between: Attili Pedda Venkataramana Murthy (dies) & others. … Petitioners AND The Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Commissioner of Land, Administration, A.P., Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M. Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18340 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled to set aside orders dated 05.01.1982 and 24.02.2001 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. Heard Sri Mandada Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). Smt. Attili Narasayamma, wife of late Appalaswamy, petitioners and others, who belonged to the same family, ﬁled statements under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’), which were taken on ﬁle as CC.Nos.8(4)/6(1)/5443, 5456, 5449, 5447, 5446, 5542, 5448 and 5450 of 1976. In CC.No.5443 of 1976, draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act was issued in the name of Smt. Attili Narasayamma proposing to show the surplus extent of 38,781 square metres of land. After observing necessary formalities, respondent No.2 passed order under Section 8(4) of the Act on 05.01.1982. The said order was questioned in appeal before respondent No.1. One of the grounds on which the order of respondent No.2 was assailed was that Smt. Attili Narsayamma, declarant in CC.No.5443 of 1976, died on 15.09.1977 and therefore the statement contained in the order of respondent No.2 that draft statement under Section 8(1) was served on the said person on 02.02.1978 was totally incorrect. It was pleaded that order of respondent No.2 passed under Section 8(4) was invalid, as draft statement was not served on the declarant. The said plea was considered and rejected by respondent No.1. He stated that all the statements ﬁled under Section 6(1) including the ones ﬁled by Smt. Attili Narsayamma, the petitioners herein and other sons and daughters of Smt. Attili Narsayamma were dealt together as properties were common, that during the course of enquiry sworn deposition of Smt. Attili Narsayamma was recorded on 05.07.1977 in the presence of petitioner No.1, sworn statement of the petitioners herein was recorded on 14.10.1977 and that after due enquiry, draft statement under Section 8(1) was sent by RPAD in January 1978 to all the declarants including petitioner No.2, who was the appellant before respondent No.1. It is further stated that after giving due opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel representing the parties, ﬁnal orders were passed on 05.01.1982 and that though Smt. Attili Narsayamma died before the order under Section 8(4) was passed, as all her legal representatives were already on record and participated in the proceedings, non-service of notice on her due to her death did not make any difference. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the fact that the petitioners and all other legal representatives of Smt. Attili Narsayamma participated in the proceedings. Inasmuch as all the legal representatives of the deceased declarant were already on record and the statements of some of them including the deceased Attili Narsayamma were recorded, no prejudice was caused on account of non- service of a formal notice on the legal representatives of Smt. Attili Narsayamma in connection with CC.No.5443 of 1976. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in the order passed by respondent No.2, he stated that notice on the draft statement was served on all the declarants including Smt. Attili Narsayamma and that she ﬁled objections thereon. On the basis of the said statement contained in the order of respondent No.2, learned counsel submitted that the said statement is factually erroneous. It is no doubt true that no notice would have been served on Smt. Attili Narsayamma on the draft statement under Section 8(1), because she evidently died by that time and there would have been no possibility of her ﬁling objections. But, the said incorrect statement of fact contained in the order of respondent No.2 does not in any manner vitiate the order, as the legal representatives of the deceased declarant including the petitioners had the opportunity of putting-forth their objections on behalf of Smt. Attili Narsayamma. In this view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1. No other contention is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.23005 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.11.2008 ES