THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.10813 & 18342 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two writ petitions arise under similar set of facts. Hence, they are heard and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.18342 of 2008. One Smt.Abbineni Anasuya was the owner of large extent of land in various survey numbers of Kondapur Revenue Village. She filed a declaration under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’), before the Land Reforms Tribunal. The proceedings under that Act became final against her, with the surrender of the surplus land. Anasuya, thereafter, sold land in Sy.No.98, admeasuring Ac.20.13 guntas in favour of various individuals. The purchasers, in turn, have sold that land in favour of M/s D.R.F. Welfare Society (for short ‘the Society’), the petitioner in W.P.No.10813 of 2008. The original land owner i.e. Anasuya died on 29-12-2000, and about one year thereafter, her husband Ramchander Rao died on 18-01-2001. The petitioners in W.P.No.18342 of 2008 are her legal representatives. The lands in Kondapur Village are within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. Therefore, a declaration, as required under Section 6 of the Act is filed by Anasuya. Through an order dated 05-03-1983 under Section 8(4) of the Act, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, the 3rd respondent held that an extent of 4,25,823 sq. meters is held in excess of ceiling limits. Aggrieved thereby, the declarant filed appeal No.62 of 1999 before the Appellate Authority, the 2nd respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, an order of status quo was granted on 18-08-1999. The legal representatives of the appellant i.e. Anasuya, were not brought on record, after she died on 29-12-2000. An application made by the petitioners in W.P.No.18342 of 2008, to bring them as legal representatives on record in the appeal before the 2nd respondent, is said to be pending. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 26-02-2007, directing that the appeal would be heard on 03-04-2007, and that the stay granted by him was vacated. This was followed by an order dated 02-02-2008 under Section 10(5) of the Act, passed by the 3rd respondent against Smt.Anasuya, the original declarant, proposing to take possession of the land. It is stated that since the declarant did not come forward, the possession was taken through a panchanama dated 11-02-2008. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was repealed by the Parliament in the year 1999; and in so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the Legislature passed a resolution, repealing it in the State of Andhra Pradesh, with effect from 27-03- 2008. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent, issued Circular Memo dated 24-04-2008, directing closure of all the matters, in view of the repeal of the Act. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 08-05-2008, closing the appeal as abated. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.978, dated 02-08-2008, allotting the land in question, in favour of Hyderabad Metro Development Authority, the 6th respondent herein, as surplus land. The Society filed W.P.No.10813 of 2008, assailing the Circular Memo dated 24-04-2008; order dated 08-05-2008, passed by the 2nd respondent, and notice dated 02-02-2008, issued by the 3rd respondent. The legal representatives of the original land-holder filed W.P.No.18342 of 2008, challenging the orders of the 2nd respondent in vacating the order of status quo, in Appeal No.62 of 1999, and G.O.Ms.No.978, dated 02-08-2008, issued by the 1st respondent, in allotting the land in favour of the 6th respondent. The petitioners contend that the entire proceedings, which are issued in the name of the dead person, viz., Anasuya, do not have any legal force in law. It is also stated that the respondents have taken hasty steps, to defeat the rights of the petitioners, that too, after the Parliament repealed the Act, and at a time when the A.P. State Legislature was contemplating to pass the resolution, adopting the repeal Act. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 counter-affidavits are filed, in the respective writ petitions. The various developments that have taken place ever since the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was filed; are mentioned in detail. It is stated that the stay granted in the appeal was vacated on account of the default committed by the appellant therein. It is ultimately pleaded that the land vested in the Government, after the possession was taken on 11-02-2008. The counter-affidavits are silent as to the death of the declarant, and the effect thereof in the proceedings. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel, appeared in W.P.No.10813 of 2008 and Sri Vasudeva Reddy, learned Advocate appeared in W.P.No.18342 of 2008. They pleaded that the declarant, Anasuya died in the year 2000, and even assuming that the 2nd respondent vacated the interim orders, further steps under Section 10 of the Act, could have been taken only after the legal representatives are brought on record. It is contended that the notices were issued in the name of a dead person, and no legal consequences flow from them. Learned Government Pleader for Assignments, on the other hand, submits that the land vested in the Government, with the taking of possession, and in view of the fact that the Act itself is repealed, the matter has assumed finality. He contends that the petitioners cannot be granted any relief at this stage. The relevant facts have already been stated in the preceding paragraphs. The declaration filed under the Act led to an order dated 05-03-1983, under Section 8(4) of the Act. Vast extent of land, viz., 4,25,835 sq. meters was held to be in excess of ceiling limits. An appeal was preferred to the 2nd respondent. In view of the interim orders passed on 18-08-1999, no further steps under Section 10 of the Act were taken by the Special Officer i.e. the 3rd respondent. It was only on 26-02-2007, that the stay was vacated. By that time, the original declarant-appellant, died, and the application filed by her legal representatives was pending. However, even while the order of stay granted by the 2nd respondent was operating, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 10-01-2007, under Section 10(5) of the Act, that too, in the name of a dead person. This was followed by an order under Section 10(6), dated 02-02-2008, once again, in the name of a dead person. Possession is said to have been taken on 11-02-2008 under a panchanama. The question as to whether the steps taken by the 3rd respondent for taking possession of the land under Section 10 of the Act are legal and valid, becomes relevant, in view of the fact that the repeal Act mandates that no further steps can be taken, in respect of any land, the possession of which is taken, under Section 10(6) of the Act. It is a matter of record that the Appellate Authority granted stay, as early as in the year 1999. It was vacated only on 26-02-2007. It was totally impermissible for the 3rd respondent to take any steps, under Section 10 of the Act, as long as the order of stay operated. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that notices up to 15-04-1998, under Section 10(3), were issued, i.e. before the appellate authority granted stay. To that extent, no exception can be taken. The crucial step of issuing notice under Section 10(5) took place on 10-01- 2007, by which time, the order of stay granted by the appellate authority was very much in force. Further, the notice was issued in the name of a dead person, i.e. Anasuya. On these two counts, the notice dated 10-01-2007 issued under Section 10(5) of the Act becomes untenable in law, if not a nullity, and no legal consequences can flow out of it. An order under Section 10(6) was passed on 02-02-2008, on the basis on a notice dated 10-01-2007, issued under Section 10(5) of the Act. This was also against a dead person. Though it is passed after the stay was vacated, it has no legs to stand, since it is based upon a notice, under Section 10(5), which suffers more infirmities than one. Hence, the notice under Section 10(6) is equally untenable. It must not be forgotten that the Act is expropriatory in nature, and strict compliance with every step must be ensured, before a citizen is deprived of his property under it, without payment of compensation. Therefore, the alleged taking of possession of the land in pursuance of the notice under Section 10(5), dated 10-01-2007, and an order dated 02-02-2008 under Section 10(6) are nullity and without any consequence of law. For the same reasons, G.O.Ms.No.978, dated 28-08-2008, deserves to be set aside. The 1st respondent issued a memo dated 24-04-2008, directing closure of all pending matters, under the Act. Following the same, the 2nd respondent closed appeal No.62 of 1999, through order dated 08- 05-2008. The grievance of the petitioners is that those two orders have been the effect of putting a premium on an otherwise invalid and illegal act of taking possession of the land from them. It has already been held that there is no valid and legal taking of possession of the land from the petitioners. The petitioners cannot have any genuine grievance, vis-à-vis the circular dated 24-04-2008, or the consequential closure of their appeal. Their rights are effected, since there is no valid taking over of possession of the land, much less vesting in the Government. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed, holding that a) the notice dated 10-01-2007, issued against a dead person, and even while an order of stay granted by the 2nd respondent was in force; as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, b) the order dated 02-02–2008 passed under Section 10(6) of the Act, by the 2nd respondent is a nullity, and c) the panchanama dated 11-02-2008 through which the possession of the land from the petitioner was taken, as illegal and without any legal consequences in law. d) G.O.Ms.No.978, dated 28-02-2008 is illegal, arbitrary and without any basis. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt. 02-03-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.18342 of 2008. At Page 2: Accordingly, the 2nd respondent passed a resolution, dated 08- 05-2008, closing the appeal as abated. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.978, dated 02-08-2008, allotting the land in question, in favour of Hyderabad Metro Development Authority, the 6th respondent herein, as surplus land. M/s D.R.F. Welfare Society (for short ‘the Society’), filed W.P.No.10813 of 2008, assailing the Circular Memo dated 24-04- 2008; order dated 08-05-2008, passed by the 2nd respondent, and notice dated 02-02-2008, issued by the 3rd respondent. At page 2 last: The legal representatives of the original land-holder filed W.P.No.18342 of 2008, challenging the orders of the 2nd respondent in vacating the order of status quo, in Appeal No.62 of 1999, and G.O.Ms.No.978, dated 02-08-2008, issued by the 1st respondent, in allotting the land in favour of the 6th respondent. The petitioners contend that the entire proceedings, which are issued in the name of the dead person, viz., Anasuya, do not have any legal force in law. It is also stated that the respondents have taken hasty steps, to defeat the rights of the petitioners, that too, after the Parliament repealed the Act, and at a time when the A.P. State Legislature was contemplating to pass the resolution, adopting the repeal Act. W.P.No.10813 of 2008 is filed by M/s D.R.F. Welfare Society (for short ‘the Society’) M/s D.R.F. Welfare Society, the petitioner in W.P.No.10813 of 2008.