THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5227 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the owners of plot No.6 in Survey No.58 old, correlated to new Survey No.127, of Bahloolkhanguda Village, Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderabad District, admeasuring 2697.90 square meters. Since the land is within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, they filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. A draft statement under Section 8(1) and a consequential notice under Section 8(3) of the Act were served upon the petitioners way back on 28.04.1980, pointing out that they can retain an extent of 1000 square meters and the balance of 1697.90 square meters is in excess of ceiling limits. For about quarter of a century, there was no movement in the matter. On a letter, dated 15.10.2005, addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ameerpet, the Special Officer & Competent Authority, the first respondent herein, passed an order, dated 16.12.2005, stating that according to T.S.L.R., the land in Survey No.58 old, correlated to new survey No.127, is classified as Government Poramboke. At the end of the order, he said that the petitioners do not have any title over the property declared by them. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the Act before the Commissioner of Appeals, the second respondent herein. The appeal was closed as abated, through order, dated 24.07.2008, on the ground that the Act was repealed. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. This is not a case where the first respondent has declared that the petitioners hold any land in excess of ceiling limits. On the other hand, the entire proceedings were dropped on the ground that the petitioners do not have any title. The first respondent is not conferred with the power to decide the title of the declarants over the land mentioned in the declaration. The petitioners can be said to have felt any grievance, if only, they were held to be holding any land in excess of ceiling limits. Admittedly, no such declaration was made in the order, 16.12.2005. The observation made by the first respondent that the petitioners do not have title over the land is completely outside the scope of his powers. The dismissal of the appeal was on a technical ground, in the sense that the Act itself is repealed. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the order, dated 16.12.2005, passed by the first respondent cannot be treated as the one deciding the title of the petitioners over the land declared by them. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.03.2009 kdl