THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 11613 of 2008 Order: One Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy and his son, namely Sri P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the original owners’), originally are the owners and pattadars of agricultural land in an extent of Acs. 76.26 gts., situated in Sy. Nos. 5, 8 and 9 to 12 of Kondapur village, Sherilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, while in Sy. No. 10, they owned an extent of Acs. 11.35 gts. of land, and out of the said extent, they jointly sold an extent of Acs. 4.00 of land to one Smt. Chilukuri Susheela Devi, under registered sale deed dated 13.09.1967. After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”), the original owners filed separate declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act on 14.09.1976, declaring the extents of lands held by them in different survey numbers, including the land owned by them in Sy. No.10. In the said declarations, the original owners declared that they hold agricultural land in an extent of 3.5 hectares (one hectare = Acs.2.471) in Sy. No. 10, and by declaring so, they excluded the land in an extent of Acs. 4.00 sold by them to Smt. Chilkuri Suusheela Devi. Smt. Chilukuri Susheela Devi, who purchased agricultural land in an extent of Acs. 4.00 in Sy. No. 10 from the original owners, sold an extent of Acs. 1.10 gts. each, vide registered sale deeds dated 22.06.1996, 24.06.1996 and 25.06.1996 to Sri K. Ravinder Reddy and others, Sri B. Amarender Reddy and two others and Srinivasa Reddy and another respectively. Subsequently, Sri K. Ravinder Reddy and others and Srinivasa Reddy and another sold the said extents of land purchased by them to Smt. P. Rajashree (1st petitioner herein) and another, vide two separate registered sale deeds dated 25.07.1996, while Sri B. Amarender Reddy and others sold the land extent of land purchased by them to Smt D. Rama (2nd petitioner herein) and another. The petitioners having purchased the said extents of lands, state that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase. While the matters stood thus, it appears that the 2nd respondent, namely the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the ULC Act, vide proceedings dated 24.01.2007, issued draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, and notice under Section 8(3) thereof for service of the same on the original owners, and for preferring objections, if any, in relation to the declarations filed by them under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, within 30 days. As no objections appear to have been filed by the original owners, the 2nd respondent passed final orders dated 07.06.2007 under Sections 8(4) of the ULC Act, and issued final statement under Section 9 thereof, determining the extent of surplus land held by the original owner, namely Sri P. Bala Krishna Reddy, in different survey numbers, including in Sy. No. 10 at 2,89,463.33 Sq. mts. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act on 26.07.2007, while the Gazette notification under Section 10(1) was published on 29.08.2007. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 10(6) of the ULC were issued by the 2nd respondent, authorizing the Deputy Tahsildar, Enquiry Officer, to take over possession of the land and hand over the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned and report compliance. The petitioners contend that they are not aware of the aforesaid proceedings, and that on coming to know that the land in an extent of Acs. 4.00 in Sy. No. 10, purchased by them under different sale deeds, which in fact, was purchased by the vendor of their vendors, much before the ULC Act came into force, was also included in the determination of the original owner, obtained certified copies thereof and filed the present writ petition, praying for the following relief: “To issue a writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent final order dated 07.06.2007 made under Section 8(4) of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the consequential Gazette Notifications issued under Section 10(1) dated 29.08.2007, Section 10(3) Notification dated 26.10.2007 and notice under Section 10(6) of the Act, issued in month of January, 2008 in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners to an extent of Ac.4-00 situated in Survey No.10 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of the procedure under the provisions of the ULC Act, and consequently set aside the same declaring as void and non est in the eye of law.” The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the original owners, out of an extent of Acs. 11.35 gts. owned by them in Sy. No. 10, have sold an extent of Acs. 4.00 initially to one Smt. Chilkuri Susheela Devi under registered sale deed dated 13.09.1967, i.e. much before the ULC Act came into force. After coming into force of the ULC Act, the original owners filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act on 12.09.1976. In the said declarations, the original owners excluded the land in an extent of Acs. 4.00 in Sy. No. 10, sold by them to Smt. Chilukuri Susheela Devi, and this is evident from the fact that they mentioned the extent of land held by them in Sy. No. 10 as 3.15 hectares. Since the original owners excluded the extent of Acs. 4.00 of land in Sy. No. 10, sold by them to Smt. Chilkuri Susheela Devi, in the declarations filed by them under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the 2nd respondent could not have included the said land in the final orders and notifications, issued determining the extent of surplus land held by the original owners, and more so when the petitioners had purchased the said land from their vendors, who had purchased the same from Smt. Chilkuri Susheela Devi, who in fact, purchased the same from the original owners, much before the ULC Act came into force. He submitted that the petitioners having purchased the land in an extent of Acs. 4.00 in Sy. No. 10 under registered sale deeds dated 25.07.1996, are in possession and enjoyment thereof, and they being persons interested in the land, the 2nd respondent could not have passed final orders 26.07.2007 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act on 07.06.2007, and issued final statement and gazette notification dated 26.07.2007, including the orders dated 26.03.2008, authorizing the Deputy Tahsildar, to take over possession of the surplus land, without issuing notices to them, and as such, the same have to be declared as non est in the eye of law. In support of his argument that non-issuance of notices and non-service of orders on the persons interested in the land, by the authority, vitiates the entire proceedings, and as such, the proceedings initiated by the authorities under the ULC Act, have to be declared non est in the eye of law, placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in M/s. L.S. & Co. v. State[1], and K.B. Surendra Kumar v. Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling[2]. He submitted that the original owners, Sri P. Bala Krishna Reddy died on 27.02.1993, and though the factum of his death was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent by the Enquiry Officer, vide his report dated 15.04.1996, yet no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record or serve notices on them, and even though his son Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, also filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, but no notices were issued to him, and instead, the 2nd respondent has taken out notices to Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, who was no more. Hence, he submitted that the notices, orders and notifications issued by the 2nd respondent under the various provisions of the ULC Act in the name of Sri P. Bala Krishna Reddy, being against a dead person, have to be declared as null and void ab initio. He submitted that since the land purchased by the petitioners, is less than Acs. 5.00, and the same being within the ceiling fixed in G.O. Ms. No. 733, dated 31.10.1988, is liable to be excluded from the determination of surplus land. At any rate, he submitted that the petitioners are not aware of any of the above proceedings, and immediately on coming to know of the said proceedings, they filed the present writ petition praying to set aside the aforesaid proceedings, and since the impugned proceedings and orders, affect their lands, prayed that the same be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent, namely the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the ULC Act filed counter. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing on behalf of the respondents, reiterating the averments made by the 2nd respondent in the counter, submitted that neither the vendors’ vendor nor the vendor of the petitioners, much less the petitioners had made any application to the 2nd respondent bringing to his notice about the purchases made by them. He submitted that the declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act were filed only by the original owners. In the enquiry report dated 30.05.1989, it was reported by the Enquiry Officer that Sri P. Bala Krishna Reddy alone was the pattadar of the land and that his name was reflected in the village records of the year 1975-76. Considering the fact that only the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, was reflected in the revenue record, draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, and notice under Section 8(3) thereof were prepared and issued on 24.01.2007 by the 2nd respondent calling for objections, if any, only from him. Thereafter, the declarant was provisionally found holding surplus land in an extent of 2,89,463.33 Sq. mts. in Sy. Nos. 5,8,9,10, 11 and 12 of Kondapur village. As no objections were received from the original owner, the 2nd respondent passed final orders under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act on 07.06.2007 confirming the surplus holding of the original owner. The said order was served on the original owner, by affixing the same on the Notice Board of the Panchayat Office, by conducting panchanama, on 24.07.2007. Thereafter, notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued on 22.08.2007 and the same was published in the Gazette Notification No.258, dated 29.08.2007, and declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was issued on 23.10.2007, which was published in Gazette No.303, dated 26.10.2007, and notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 20.11.2007 and proceedings under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act were issued on 26.03.2008 and possession of the surplus land was taken over. He submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988, for it is applicable only to the original declarants. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment and considering the rival contentions, the following questions do arise for consideration in the writ petition: 1. Whether the land in an extent of Ac. 4.00 in Sy. No.10, purchased by the petitioners from their predecessors- in-title, who purchased the same from Smt. Chilkuri Susheela Devi, who in fact, had purchased the same from the original owners, much before the ULC Act, came into force, should be excluded from determination, particularly when the same is not reflected in the declarations filed by the original owners under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act? 2. Whether the impugned proceedings under the various provisions of the ULC Act, which led to determination of surplus land and passing orders for taking over possession thereof, particularly in relation to the land purchased by the petitioners, by the 2nd respondent, against the original owner, namely Sri P. Bala Krishna Reddy, who died in the year 1993, are void and non-est in the eye of law ? 3. Whether the petitioners, who purchased the land in question, from their predecessors-in-title, who purchased the same from Smt. Chilkuri Susheela Devi, who in fact, had purchased the same from the original owners, are parties interested in the property, if so, whether they are entitled to be issued notices in relation to the proceedings under the various provisions of the ULC Act, passed by the 2nd respondent, and if so, what would be the effect of non-service of such notices on them? 4. Whether the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title, were entitled to the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 733, dated 31.10.1988, which permitted holding of Acs. 5.00 of agricultural land in urban agglomeration ? To answer the aforesaid questions, a reference be made to some of the undisputed facts, as emerging from the record produced by the respondents, which run thus: Sri P. Bala Krishna Reddy and his son Sri P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, are original owners and pattadars of agricultural land in an extent of Acs. 76.26 gts. of agricultural land in Sy. Nos. 5, 8 and 9 to 12, including land in an extent of Ac. 11-35 guntas in Sy. No.10 of Kondapur village, Sherilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Out of the said extent of land in Sy. No. 10, they sold an extent of Ac.4-00 of land, to one Smt. Chilukuri Susheela Devi, on 13.09.1967 under a registered sale deed. The said Smt. Chilukuri Susheela Devi, out of the extent of Acs. 4-00 of land purchased by her from the original owners (declarants), sold an extent of Ac.1-10 guntas each in Survey No.10 (part), vide sale deeds dated 22.06.1996, 24.06.1996 and 25.06.1996 in favour of Sri. K. Ravinder Reddy and others, Sri. B. Amarander Reddy and two others and Srinivasa Reddy and another. Later, Sri. K. Ravinder Reddy and others and Sri. Srinivasa Reddy and another, sold the said lands purchased by them in favour of Smt. P. Rajashree (1st petitioner herein) and another, vide registered sale deeds dated 25.07.1996, while Sri. B. Amarender Reddy and others sold the land purchased by them in favour of Smt. D. Rama (2nd petitioner herein) and another. A perusal of the record produced by the respondents would reveal that after coming into force of the ULC Act, the original owners, filed declarations separately under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, on 12.09.1976, declaring the different extents of land held by them in Sy. Nos. 5, 8, 9 to 12 and 34. In the declarations, they mentioned that they in Sy. No. 10, they hold an extent of 3.15 Hectares, which is equivalent to Acs. 7-35 guntas. Acting on the said declarations, the 2nd respondent issued notices to the original owners, for participating in the enquiry and other proceedings under the ULC Act. However, at the request of the declarants, the enquiry and proceedings were postponed from time to time. On 30.05.1989, the Enquiry Officer having enquired about the status of the land, submitted a report to the 2nd respondent, stating that “the lands declared fall within H.U.A. (but out of municipal limits) and earmarked for “agriculture” in the Master Plan Register maintained. That the declarants failed to produce pahani patrikas for the crucial periods, and therefore, the lands held by them may be treated as vacant lands, for the purpose of computation. He further stated that in the pahanies for the years 1975-76 and 1987- 88, the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, is recorded in the pattadar and owner column. Since the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy was recorded in the owner and pattadar column, in the pahanies for the year 1975-76 and 1987-88, the Enquiry Officer reported that the lands may be computed against Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy alone, and notice be issued to Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, to produce evidence in support of his title. He, however, did not make any reference in relation to Smt. Chilukuri Susheela Devi, whose name was recorded as owner and pattadar, in the pahani for the year 1987- 88. The fact that the lands in Sy. Nos. 5, 10 and 11 are agricultural lands, is evident from the Agricultural Land Certificate dated 25.03.1988, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally. Thereafter, it appears, notices were again issued to the original owners. The Enquiry Officer, having conducted enquiry into the status of the land, submitted another report on 15.04.1996, stating that he inspected the land in the presence of Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, and during the course of inspection, he found that he was in possession and enjoyment of some extent of land, and that his father Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, had died, and that during his life time, he had sold several extents of land, and that the said persons are in possession and enjoyment of the same. This report, admittedly, reported the factum of death of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, to the Special Officer and Competent Authority. Thereafter, another enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer, having conducted the enquiry, submitted report on 14.09.2006 reporting the ground status of the lands in relation to different survey numbers, stating that as per the pahani for the year 1979-80, the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy is recorded as pattedar and as per the pahani for the year 1988-89, the name of Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, is recorded as pattedar, in respect of land in Sy. No. 10, and that out of an extent of Acs. 11.35 gts. of land in Sy. No. 108, an extent of Acs. 9.35 gts. is covered by structures and an extent of Acs. 2.00 is still vacant, and that the vacant land is available here and there, which is covered by individual compound walls, and that construction work is under progress in some vacant lands. Even though the enquiry report dated 08.12.1999 and the enquiry reports obtained prior thereto, did not report any construction in the land in Sy. No.10, but the fact remains, the report dated 08.12.1999, reflected existence of poultry farm, while the latest enquiry report dated 14.09.2006, reported that out of the land in an extent of Acs. 11.35 gts. in Sy. No. 10, an extent of Acs. 9.35 gts. is covered by structures, and the remaining extent of Acs. 2.00 is vacant land, and that the said vacant land is available here and there, which is covered by individual compound walls, and that construction work is under progress against some vacant lands. The fact that the enquiry report dated 08.12.1999, did not report existence of any constructions in the land in Sy. No. 10, much less covered by compound walls, would suggest that the constructions reported in the land in Sy. No. 10, vide reported dated 14.09.2006, obviously must have taken place in between the period 08.12.1999 and 14.09.2006 and not at an earlier point of time. However, the 2nd respondent without taking note of the enquiry report dated 14.09.2006, and based on the enquiry report dated 08.12.1999, the 2nd respondent issued draft statement dated 24.01.2007 under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, determining the extent of surplus land held by them, and notice under Section 8(3) thereof, to the original owners, to submit their objections, if any, within 30 days. There is a panchanama dated 26.04.2007 in the record, and a perusal of the same, would disclose that the panch witnesses stated that there is no person by name Sri P. Bala Krishna Reddy and Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, residing in the village. Therefore, the draft statement and notice dated 24.01.2007, were affixed on the Notice Board of the Panchayat Office at Kondapur. As obviously, no objections were filed by the original owners, the 2nd respondent passed final orders dated 07.06.2007, under Section 9 of the ULC confirming the draft statement, determining the extent of surplus land held by the original owners. Though Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy and his son, namely Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, filed declarations, but the final orders dated 07.06.2007, were addressed only to Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy. As no person by name, Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, was said to be residing in the village, the Enquiry Officer, affixed the said orders in the Panchayat Office, under a panchanama on 24.07.2007, and to that effect, filed a report. Thereafter, notice and declaration Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act respectively, were issued on 22.08.2007 and 23.10.2007, and they were also published in the official gazette on 29.08.2007 and 26.10.2007 respectively. In the said notice and declaration, only the name of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy is mentioned, while the name of Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, who also filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, is not found. Pursuant thereto, notice dated 20.11.2007 under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued to Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, to surrender the determined surplus land. On 20.12.2007, the Enquiry Officer made an endorsement that the whereabouts of Sri. P. Bala Krishna Reddy, are not known and that he affixed the said notice on the spot. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued to Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy. There is no endorsement as to whether the said notice was served on Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy. However, the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 26.03.2008 stating that as the declarant Sri. P. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, failed to deliver possession of the land, authorized the Deputy Tahsildar, Enquiry Officer, to take over possession of the determined surplus land and handover the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer. In terms of the said order, the determined surplus land was taken on the same day under a cover of panchanama. In reply to Question No.1: Admittedly, the original owners, an extent of Acs. 76.26 gts. of agricultural lands in Sy. Nos. 5, 8 and 9 to 12, including land in an extent of Acs. 11.35 gts. in Sy. No. 10 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. Out of the said extent of land owned by them in Sy. No. 10, they sold an extent of Acs. 4-00 of agricultural land to one Smt. Chilkuri Susheela Devi under registeed sale deed on 13.09.1967. Obviously this sale transaction, entered into by the original owners with one Smt. Chilkuri Susheela Devi, took place much before the ULC Act came into force, which in fact, came into force w.e.f. 17.02.1976. The original owners having sold an extent of Acs. 4-00 of agricultural land in Sy. No. 10, were owning balance land in an extent of Acs. 7-35 gts. therein, and this is evident from the fact that in the declarations filed by them under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, they mentioned the extent of land owned by them in Sy. No. 10 as 3.15 Hectares (One hectare is equivalent to Ac.2.471). In fact, it is the case of the petitioners, as is evident from the pahanies for the years 1979-80, 1994-95 and 1995-96, that the name of Smt. Chilkuri Susheela Devi, is also recorded in the pattadar column. The report dated 30.05.1989, submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the 2nd respondent, reported that in the pahani for the year 1987-88, in the pattadar and owner column, the names of the original owners and Smt. Chilkuri Susheela Devi, is recorded. Since the original owners in the declarations filed by them under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, have themselves declared that they own only an extent of Acs. 7-35 gts. of land in Sy. No. 10, and the land sold by them to Smt. Chilkuri Susheela Devi, from whose vendees, the petitioners purchased the land in question, under registered sale deeds dated 25.07.1996, having been excluded in the declarations filed by the original owners under the ULC Act, I am of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent was not justified in including